Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2023 was +0.91 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, statistically unchanged from the October, 2023 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C.
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 23 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 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 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
Wow. I have never seen a winter as hot as this year. Hopefully it will not seriously affect the Earth’s climate
Ha,ha,ha, good one, the folks in Munich, especially the ones whose airplanes were frozen to the ground preventing them from leaving to attend COP-28 in Dubai, may disagree with you. Munich has broken all of its prior records, and other locations are also seeing an early onset of very cold weather.
@survivor io
“I have never seen a winter as hot as this year”
___________________________________________________
Where did you see it?
On planet earth we still have autumn. Even “meteorological winter”
just began.
“Hopefully it will not seriously affect the Earths climate”
___________________________________________________________
A season doesnt affect the climate.
Its the climate, which affects a season.
In fairness to @survivor io, it is not widely known that winter starts December 21st in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Era of Greta.
“Its the climate, which affects a season.”
Now I seem to learn something new every day. But this is very interesting indeed.
While climate is a statistic of weather and seasons are related to certain weather patterns, now it is the climate that affects seasons.
Is this the result of the Hunga Tonga vulcano event beginning of 2022 which has move millionen of tons of water into the stratosphaere ?
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.
Here:
https://imgur.com/a/QFaA0lF
and here:
https://youtu.be/9lkCCNblIMM
Ark, the EEI value is nonsense, bogus, anti-science.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
December now needs to be -0.57 to equal the record.
Dec-Jun needs to average +0.06 for the 2023-24 ENSO season (Jul-Jun) to be the warmest on record.
… to equal the ANNUAL record …
The rest of the decade needs to average +0.02 for the 2020s to be the warmest decade.
SInce November is a tiny fraction cooler than October, would this be considered a warming pause?
There’s no doubt. We could be at the beginning of the mother of all pauses.
You’ll have to ask deniers what they would consider to be a “pause.” They’re the ones who need it.
You alarmists are the guys that desperately need big El Nino events !
Even though they prove that humans aren’t the cause.
Incorrect. We run with the AVERAGE, not extreme events. You guys compare La Ninas from today to El Ninos from the past.
Mr. Q,
I am not a denier, I just don’t believe the concern about CO2 in the atmosphere is warranted. Actually, for various reasons, I’m always surprised its getting warmer, but also pleased. I hope it keeps getting warmer.
But you could place me with deniers in that I don’t believe the atmospheric CO2 added by mans actions is the cause of warming.
Think of what (I suppose) you advocate; actions to slow the use of the most efficient energy source for the common man: gasoline and diesel fuel. That in itself is a reason not to limit their use.
Then, go a bit farther than the shortsighted policies being advocated. Pretend they work. Wonderful you say. But the earths climate may be compared to an overly large ocean going vessel. It will takes years to turn from its course. If the policies work, and the weather, then climate stops getting warmer, those policies will continue, there being no thermostat to turn them on and off at will. Then the climate will begin to cool. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? No, it is not. Cold brings snow and ice and an inability to grow foodstuffs. Cold kills more people than heat. The first winter that snow falls so heavily in the grain belts that it can’t all melt the next summer will lead to mass starvation.
The other direction, warmer, opens vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia which would/will be used to grow more food.
Merry Christmas
(if you wish to respond – I don’t come here often – guignard.lb at the gmail.)
This short pause is significant compared to the past 4 months. Hurricanes stop before changing direction too.
All anomaly charts are dishonest, visually deceptive charts that make tiny temperature changes look huge
The only honest charts are absolute temperature charts that cover a temperature range similar to an ordinary red line thermometer that people might have at home.
An anomaly charts may show more details but unless accompanied by an absolute temperature chart, as done on the home page of WUWT, they are ammunition for climate scaremongering.
Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does.
Why would that be the only honest chart? Where would the origin be (absolute zero?) and what scale would be needed? What research have you seen which supports the notion that the anomalies shown, even on the UAH series, are inconsequential?
The claimed warming of about 0.7 degrees C. inthe 44 years since 1979 is too small and too gradual for humans to notice. Especially since most of the warming wa at night when most people are sleeping.
The anomaly chart exaggerates warming visually and makes a tiny change over four decades look huge. In addition, a chart encourages people to see patterns that are just random variations.
I have been posting this UAH chart on my climate science and energy blog for the past 663,000 page b views. Today I decided to post ONLY absolute temperature charts that inform people, rather than scaring them.
It was my hope that an UAH absolute temperature chart would exist someday, published along with the UAH anomaly chart.
The anomaly charts are ammunition for climate scaremongers. The same UAH number can look frightening on an anomaly chart and harmless on an absolute temperature chart.
Global warming since 1979 HAS been harmless
Therefore, it should look harmless on an honest chart.
And if you do not accept that reason, I had an absolute temperature chart on my blog home page for the first 554,000 page views. Every leftist who looked at it went berserk, claiming the chart was fake. When I explained the absolute chart had exactly the same temperature data as the anomaly chart they liked, they did not believe me. Leftists hate absolute temperature charts, so they must be good!
Here is an example, borrowed from WUWT, of posting both types of charts at the same time:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.Com/2023/12/same-data-on-honest-versus-dishonest.html
Most of the warming was NOT at night.
In some place the minimums have risen more (eg USA), in others it is the maximums (eg. UK and Australia).
“What people notice” is not relevant to changes in rainfall pattern and other effects.
To A.Q. who read my comment and claimed most of th global warming was NOT at night.
The warming has been mainly TMIN rather than TMAX. I called TMIN “at night”, and apologize if that confused you.
The chart at the link below presents data that back up my claim that most warming since the 1970s was at night. I am describing the entire surface area of our planet. not just one or two specific nations, such as the US or Australia. The details of the warming since 1975 — locations and timing — present MORE information than a single global average temperature that not one person lives. Especially a single average presented on a visually deceptive anomaly chart that makes a minor 0.5 degree C. change look huge.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/11/one-symptom-of-greenhouse-warming-is.html
Most of the warming was also in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere (colder nations).
See the warming by latitude data chart at the link below:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/11/global-warming-since-1970s-was-mainly.html
Most of the warming was also in the six coldest months of the year. The Arctic region is a perfect example of that.
These three characteristics of warming since the 1970s explain why the warming was good news, even as Climate Alarmists warned us of climate doom every year since 1979 … while the climate actually improved.
The theme / poster boy for post-1975 warming should be: Warmer winter nights in Siberia
“Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does.”
If you really want to stick it to the alarmists, you should demand that the Y axis be completely zoomed out, and insist it be in Kelvin.
Just like an infant and a grown woman are pretty much the same height if you make the Y axis cover 100 metres.
In science we choose scales on charts to visualize the change as clearly as possible.
So we don’t zoom out to intentionally make variation look insignificant, as is being suggested here.
Nate says “In science”
ha ha
“Climate change” is mainly wild guess, data free predictions of a coming global warming crisis, that have been 100% wrong since 1979,
What is called consensus climate science (not this website) is at least 90% politics and 10% science.
Science + Politics = Politics
The leftists think “climate change” is science because the predictions of global warming doom are made by government scientists. They falsely believe whatever a scientist says or predicts is science
Without data there is no science: CAGW predictions have no data, and they have also been wrong for 44 years in a row, since the 1979 Charney Report.
CAGW has never happened, so there are no historical CAGW data
There are never data for the future climate
Therefore, predictions of CAGW are data free predictions, and data free predictions are not science.
UAH data can also be presented in a data table
When presented as anomalies on a chart the UAH data make barely noticeable temperature changes look huge. That serves as climate alarmist propaganda. Adding a UAH absolute temperature chart will put the tiny temperature changes into a perspective that visually demonstrates how minor the warming since 1979 was.
Well this blog, and its author certainly consider it science. If you have no interest in climate science, then don’t come here.
” are made by government scientists.”
Really you think most scientists who study this topic work for the government?
That would be quite false.
“When presented as anomalies on a chart the UAH data make barely noticeable temperature changes look huge. That serves as climate alarmist propaganda.”
So you are suggesting that the guy who makes the chart, Roy Spencer, is a supporter of climate alarmist propaganda?
This is just Chart-making 101.
When I search Dow Jones Chart, whatever years range, the y-axis covers only the full data range, and NO MORE.
Eg. here is the 5 y chart
https://www.5yearcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/dow-jones-5y.png
Is that because they want to serve stock market propaganda?
Looks like Richard wants to hide the incline.
Richard Greene
1. ” Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures… ”
No problem for me!
Here is a chart showing absolute data for UAH 6.0 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
*
2. ” … in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does. ”
How can a person like you, manifestly not having a clue of how anomalies are constructed, so woefully discredit people using them?
Here is a second chart, in which absolute and anomaly based UAH data are displayed in common relative to their respective mean:
https://tinyurl.com/3zy3uhtf
*
FYI
Time series anomalies are constructed as departures from the means of the time series’ unit with respect to a given reference period, here: months.
This explains why, at the right end of the picture, absolute values and anomalies run in the opposite direction.
The baseline for UAH 6.0 LT wrt the means of 1991-2020, together with the absolute temperatures for 2023 and the anomalies obtained by subtracting the monthly baseline values from the absolute values:
Mon | baseline | absol | diff | UAH anomalies
Jan | 263.179 | 263.141 | -0.038 | -0.04
Feb | 263.269 | 263.352 | 0.083 | 0.08
Mar | 263.427 | 263.631 | 0.204 | 0.20
Apr | 263.843 | 264.026 | 0.183 | 0.18
Mai | 264.448 | 264.819 | 0.371 | 0.37
Jun | 265.099 | 265.477 | 0.378 | 0.38
Jul | 265.418 | 266.059 | 0.641 | 0.64
Aug | 265.233 | 265.928 | 0.695 | 0.70
Sep | 264.637 | 265.535 | 0.898 | 0.90
Oct | 263.945 | 264.869 | 0.924 | 0.92
Nov | 263.406 | 264.317 | 0.911 | 0.91
Dec | 263.191
*
You see that though August 2023 was the highest absolute value, later months had higher differences to their respective baseline month than July.
**
Anomalies are useful because they help in computing more accurate trends (with lower standard error) than is possible when working with absolute values, due to removal of the annual cycle (the seasons).
See
UAH v6 LT Global Temperatures with Annual Cycle
March 3rd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/#comments
*
They are also very helpful for comparison with other anomaly based time series:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
But… only if it is ensured in advance that the anomaly series were created for the same reference period and not as follows:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
Ooop?!
” You see that though August 2023…”
should read
” You see that though July 2023… “
It seems that Mr. Greene, whose skep~tîcism is probably separated by at best a tenth of a millimeter from pseudo-skep~tîcism:
” All anomaly charts are dishonest, visually deceptive charts that make tiny temperature changes look huge… ”
has finally understood what an image of absolute UAH LT data would look like on the screen if it were displayed at the same resolution as that for the anomaly data used by Mr Spencer on his blog:
https://tinyurl.com/3zy3uhtf
versus
https://i.postimg.cc/v8KnWQJP/UAH-LT-1979-thru-November-2023-v6-20×9.jpg
While the anomaly value range is between +1.0 and -0.7 C, that of the absolute data lies within +2.0 and -1.3 K, hence nearly twice as high.
Even the trend of the absolute data is – albeit a tiniest fraction of a degree / decade – higher than that of the anomalies.
*
This aside from the fact that if Mr. Greene were a climate scientist, he most likely would not be very interested in comparing UAH’s LT and LS layers based on absolute data…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
… but would prefer to switch to a slightly more convenient, anomaly-based comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qC_cbNrs_qI6qBujpJ-nuxRAokaNIVri/view
Can I ask what makes you qualified to say what the best way to present scientific data is?
Are you saying that if I had a graph showing someone’s body temperature over time, it would only be honest if it was in Kelvin?
Somebody looking at the graph would see a bunch values around 311 K, and a dangerous fever of 314 K would barely be noticeable. It seems to me that it would be better to zoom into the range of values that happen.
UAH 10-year running average:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-running-average
Hope Spencer and Christy are working on v7.0 to fix this.
The needed “fix” of course being that the rate is too small because they are measuring temperatures aloft.
You mean NOT being measured in the middle of large UHI affected areas and airport sites that are totally inappropriate for measuring any changes in climate ?
You KNOW that those temperatures are adjusted downwards for this effect.
spike55
” You mean NOT being measured in the middle of large UHI affected areas and airport sites that are totally inappropriate for measuring any changes in climate ? ”
**
Sorry for the lengthy expos but I don’t want to contribute to to superficial UHI blah blah.
I hope you won’t consider the pristine USCRN sites to be among the ones you’re talking about. Some people here and there are in between brazen enough to do so.
*
1. Some years ago, Anthony Watts was ranting at his WUWT against an airport-based station at Anchorage, AK. He said:
“Two degrees above other stations there”.
He was right, but what is the sense of comparing absolute temperatures?
Here is the right one, based on anomalies, with Anchorage AP compared to the CRN station 26563 ‘Kenai 29 ENE’, located in the middle of nowhere:
https://tinyurl.com/AK-Kenai
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view
(updated this year)
The linear trends for 2011-2023 look nearly identical but aren’t.
Trends of the Savitzky-Golay filter outputs, C/decade:
– Ancho: 0.75 +- 0.27
– Kenai: 0.89 +- 0.19
The outsider station has for this period a lower trend than the UHI suspected ugly station.
Of course, this is a very short period, but it was for me surprising enough to continue looking for similar things.
*
2. Last year, using the raw GHCN daily station set, I compared about 120 CRN stations (i.e. with TMIN/TMAX out of USCRN data) with about 960 randomly selected stations around them (the only criterion was location within the same degree of latitude and longitude):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jp5Bk75cAmSdZOAbfuSn3HRudwZ9Ld73/view
92 airports are in the 960 stations; and with ‘airport’ I don’t mean only such ones:
https://tinyurl.com/Bozeman-AP
*
Here too: period too short, and the numbers tell more than the pic.
Trends of the Savitzky-Golay filter outputs for 2005-2023 in C/decade:
Tmin
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.04
1 deg: 0.57 +- 0.04, and therein
AP: 0.59 +- 0.04
no AP: 0.53 +- 0.04
Tmax
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.03
1 deg: 0.41 +- 0.03, and therein
AP: 0.55 +- 0.03
no AP: 0.34 +- 0.03
Tmean = (Tmin+Tmax)/2
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.04
1 deg: 0.48 +- 0.04, and therein
AP: 0.57 +- 0.03
no AP: 0.42 +- 0.04
*
The airports stations report on average higher trends than the rest.
But for Tmax, the 960 stations (APs included) show a lower trend than the pristine stations. That’s unexpected.
For me layman, UHI still is best discovered in winters’ Tmin data…
*
Conclusion: there is interest in looking at a bigger context.
Maybe the 30,000 US city database
https://simplemaps.com/data/us-cities
then a global city database and a global airport database could aid further discovery.
On verra bien.
Another rainy low over eastern Australia. Today’s SOI positive.
https://i.ibb.co/dMY2LxF/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Significance?
Lack of drought and lower temperatures. Strong convection.
An El Nino doesn’t have to mean drought. All El Ninos are different. It’s only a tendency.
Sydney’s average temperature for the past 7 days is 2.5C above the long-term average for this time of year.
Sydney’s forecast average temperature for the next 7 days is 3.5C above the long-term average.
But you wouldn’t know that because you only cherry pick the cooler days. Why don’t you give us an update on Perth’s average temperature for November? Not paid to do that?
https://i.ibb.co/cCLwSSv/archive-9-image.png
“Yeah … I’ll just post a map with no title and no explanation … that’ll end the discussion …”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
The Kp index suddenly jumped to 7, indicating a very strong geomagnetic storm.
Most worrying is the “heat” in the Arctic. This augurs a hard winter in the mid-latitudes, with heavy snowfall.
https://i.ibb.co/9Ymgv3x/gfs-npole-sat-t2min-d1.png
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
The UK has just recorded some of the coldest November night time temperatures for almost 30 years , last night we had a -10 with heavy snow in the east, my gear read -3 at mid day.temperatures dropping off again ,
Looking out your window has always been a good way to determine global temperatures.
AW,
Maybe the point is that what you see looking out of your window is more useful than any “global temperature”.
Surface temperatures range between roughly +90 C, and -90 C. “Global temperature” is a pointless fiction. Don’t you agree?
We don’t have a global warming problem. The entirety of modern civilization has transpired during the Holocene. I hope the Holocene doesn’t end.
Stephen, looks like you’ve invented a new meaning for “transpire”.
It’s difficult to know what your intended meaning is.
Dictionary?
Worried about imminent glaciation, Stephen?
A,
Are you claiming to be too lazy or incompetent to find the meaning of a word?
OK, Ill take pity on your affliction. From a dictionary, a definition of the verb “transpire”
– to happen:
Here’s an example of usage –
“The entirety of modern civilization has transpired during the Holocene.”
You don’t need to thank me. It’s always a privilege to assist those less capable than myself.
Quite right, Mike Flynn.
It is well known that humanity transpires. You above all!
Please do not sweat it.
Cheers.
Why does nothing but nonsense come out of your month Antoenail Queery? All of your posts are meaningless, because you’re a one-celled parrot.
One again beats the previous record for November, set in 2019 by 0.49 C.
This makes it the 5th month in a row that a record for that month has been set. The June – November average this year has beaten the previous record, set in 2020, by 0.39C.
There is now no place you can start and get a negative trend (apart from starting last month). Best cherry pick is now December 2015 for a trend of 0.04C / decade. The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade. Which is meaningless, except to point out the absurdity of claiming no warming over a similar period is a pause.
Here’s a graph of the June – Nov average.
https://imgur.com/a/QH2kw93
And here’s the 12 monthly average from December – November.
https://imgur.com/a/6RRzQjn
This is still just about a record, which is impressive when you consider the start of the year was in negative territory.
Yet we dont know the cause for the three month spike in temperatures, still an awful lot of excess moisture in the upper atmosphere.
This spike was caused by the combined forcings of the HTE and El Niño. The HTE has ended and when the EN abates, temps should fall.
More BS from grammie clone, as usual. Where’s your documentation to support your repeated claims that the HT-HH eruption caused any recent warming?
Clearly the recent warming was caused by Taylor Swift getting together with Travis Kelce, cuz, ya know correlation = causation, according to Clint.
More BS from grammie clone, as usual. Wheres your documentation to support your repeated claims that the HT-HH eruption caused any recent warming? Now you are claiming that your “HTE has ended”, but I content that you need to provide data to show it really existed before you can say it’s gone.
Of course temps will fall when the El Nio ends, Clint. But will they fall back down to the level of pre-industrial temps? Or even down to the temps of pre-2014 times? Not likely.
The excess water vapour was almost exclusively in the southern hemisphere, yet the majority of the heat has been in the northern hemisphere.
Ant, you’re desperation is showing.
El Ninño is only in a portion of Equatorial Pacific Ocean, yet it affects global temperatures.
Did you think I was talking about El Nino? Oh dear.
I’m desperation is showing ??
Actually Ant, I thought you didn’t know what you were talking about, as usual.
You appeared to be saying that since HT occurred in the Southern Hemisphere it wouldn’t affect the rest of the globe. I merely pointed out that ENSO is only a small part of the globe, yet can affect global temperatures.
But, I didn’t expect you to understand….
Only eruptions close to the equator have reduced global temperatures in the past. I’ll leave it for you to be bothered to research the reason (you won’t be). The reason applies equally to warming.
ENSO warming STARTS at the source and spreads.
Change in global temperatures from volcanos does NOT.
Ridiculous comparison.
A,
Must be the GHE, do you think?
Could you explain the science for those who don’t understand?
“There is now no place you can start and get a negative trend (apart from starting last month).”
Correct Bellman. If we’re at the peak of the warming trend, this would be the place to start.
And talking of Monkton’s mythical pauses, the trend from his most exciting start month of July 1997, the beginning of his favourite pause, is now just under 0.14 deg C per decade – pretty much the same as the trend for the whole dataset
What’s mythical about it, the flat trend stands out like a sore thumb on the UAH graph posted above, from 2016 to 2022. Look at the two back to back sine wave-like variations from 2016 onward, which average to zero trend.
Yes, you can see the pause here.
https://tinyurl.com/2v2ehur5
You can do similar with any of the global temp datasets.
B,
“The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade.”
I dont think the seas will start boiling within 2,000 years. What about you – do you think the trend will stop?
I certainly hope you can reassure me that this trend will not continue, or even get worse. What does your research and your calculations show?
bellman…don’t know where you studied statistics, but where I studied it, you don’t form a trend from a few months out of a 75 months data set.
Look at the entire range from 1979 – 2023 and there are major flat trends involved.
Apparently you chose to ignore the part where he stated it was meaningless. He was simply mimicking what you people do with data. Preach to your buddies.
Yes, Swenson’s deceitfulness is endless.
“dont know where you studied statistics, but where I studied it, you dont form a trend from a few months out of a 75 months data set.”
And yet you were perfectly happy to point out the trend from 2016 over the last few years.
You were wrong to do so, of course, and bellman made the same point when he accompanied the trend since January 2018 with the words, “It’s meaningless.”
Which ‘skeptics’ seem to have overlooked.
barry, please stop trolling.
These high temperatures of the troposphere are caused by highs in the oceans. This provides an increase in the solar-heated surface of the oceans.
https://i.ibb.co/7V9mt17/gfs-world-wt3-mslp-anomsd-d1.png
https://i.ibb.co/hXNpBhQ/gfs-world-wt3-sstanom-d1.png
The maximum surface temperature of the open ocean cannot exceed 31 C. Only the surface of the warmer ocean can increase. This forces the amount of water vapor to increase.
25 highs to 23 lows. WOW – such unusual conditions!!
Not as unusual as you continuing to bray about a fraction of a degree warming of a statistical average.
Or you continuing to believe that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
M
O
N
C
K
T
O
N
P
A
W
S
The ijit, wee willy, cannot even post correctly.
So says the crank who keeps getting taken as a spammer by WordPress.
HINT: in a post where ‘posting correctly’ is the whole point, avoid being incorrect.
* “ijit” is spelled incorrectly
* “willy” is capitalized incorrectly.
Oh, OK.
Wee Willy is an idiot.
Better?
Yet we dont know the cause for the three month spike in temperatures, still an awful lot of excess moisture in the upper atmosphere.
Hunga Tonga Hung Ha’apai eruption ?!
I would like more detail on which parts of the planet are causing this warming spike because it certainly is not happening locally in Vancouver, Canada.
I am beginning to wonder if the Hunga Tonga water vapour injection into the stratosphere is not somehow messing with the satellite readings.
“I would like more detail on which parts of the planet are causing this warming spike”
You could scroll to the top of the page for regional values. Or go to the UAH page linked in Roy’s post to examine the temperature of even more regional zones covering the globe.
But that isn’t a genuine comment, so you won’t. Even when it’s laid out for you at the click of a mouse.
Gordo, when will you ever take the time to learn the basics? Weather is not climate. Cherry picking one location’s data for a few days tells nothing about the changes in global climate. Besides, December 1 was the first day of Winter in the NH.
“I am beginning to wonder if the Hunga Tonga water vapour injection into the stratosphere is not somehow messing with the satellite readings.”
Point 1 is that the there is a stratospheric component to the calculation of lower troposphere so it’s not unreasonable to suppose that a change in the nominal temperature vs altitude profile isn’t well handled by the algorithms. Swanson has been pulling at that thread for years.
Point 2 is that there is a corresponding spike in temperature anomaly for the surface dataset, so there’s some confidence that the satellite data isn’t completely out to lunch.
Excess moisture in the stratosphere is 1 part per million above what was prior to HTE. That’s about 15% higher than usual.
barry, Swanson, Mark B, please stop trolling.
A major snowstorm from the French Alps to Ukraine.
https://i.ibb.co/Vj0nT1J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-01-214556.png
“White Bizon” is charging into Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/12/02/0500Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-334.36,55.56,888
Pretty amazing how air circulates in the atmosphere.
The anomaly in ozone distribution (accumulation over the Bering Sea) will remain in December. It will cause the breakdown of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/WgjmDDd/gfs-t70-nh-f384.png
It is blatantly obvious here in Vancouver, Canada that this so-called record global average is meaningless. Whatever is causing the sats to measure such an out-of-balance average is definitely not reflected locally. It was so unseasonally cold the other night that I had to get up and turn on a heater in my bedroom as temperatures hovered around -3C.
The idea that it is related to a trace gas in the atmosphere is equally absurd. Anyone pushing this anthropogenic meme is seriously misinformed about real science.
“It is blatantly obvious here in Vancouver, Canada that…”
______________________
That what?
That it must be the same everywhere, all over the world?
Well, the global average presumably applies to the globe. So yes, it applies all over the world. A completely pointless and irrelevant number – just like “air” temperatures.
Is there supposed to be a use for any of this stuff?
So if the global average IQ were to rise, that would mean everyone would now have an IQ higher than the previous average?
Of course not … there would still be conservatives.
Global averages are completely pointless and irrelevant, I agree.
What’s a conservative? Do they promote conservation?
Yeah Mikey, they try to conserve the dictatorship of their out-of-favour leaders by staging insurrections.
You seem to make very angry and irrational posts attacking everything and everyone that does not agree with or support the alarmist narrative.
The HTE is a disrupting effect initially masked by SO2,s cooling effect. The moisture has spread and is now generally accepted as dissipating with an expected atmospheric presence of c. 5 years for H2O with 2 years for SO2. It will take another 1 to 2 years to correlate the effect to be able to deduct its effect to see the real trend. It is a real effect though which can not be denied and it correlates with the abrupt upswing in the data presented by Dr Spencer.
GW is real although at 400 ppm CO2 has become mostly irrelevant to additional warming, not so methane. (Do your physics on that one) That said I am in favour of additional CO2 to assist plant growth given C3 is optimal at c. 1800 ppm. Geology tells us temperature and CO2 have been much higher with life on planet earth doing just fine. No crisis no need to panic – stay calm.
I fear the cold returning, that is a problem. The record tells us this is a more likely event. We are in an ice age that is just a geological fact and given the last week of sub zero temps and -6c at night a record for this time of year here in Scotland even with the Gulf Stream I find the data at odds with my experience.
I approve of saying what you see and feel as others have it is weather and it is also scientific to observe. No harm in that.
No David, I respond in kind to people who make very angry and irrational posts attacking everything and everyone that does not agree with or support the denial narrative. If you were honest you would admit that Swenson (aka Mike Flynn) is one of those people. But I know you won’t want to break ranks.
HT ejected almost no SO2 into the stratosphere, so you have invented that claim.
” It is a real effect though which can not be denied and it correlates with the abrupt upswing in the data presented by Dr Spencer.”
Correlation is not = causation. You need to establish the cause, ie the mechanism.
Do you have one?
The impact of the HT-HH eruption appears as a brief cooling spike in the NOAA STAR LS data, the opposite of that for Pinatubo and El Chichon. Please provide data to support the claim that the eruption was the cause of the reported warming this year.
Swanson, the “supporting data” you’re seeking is in the UAH Global results for the last several months.
And it is further supported by the STAR data and your recognition that this volcano was not your typical volcano.
Nate,
You accidentally wrote –
“Correlation is not = causation. You need to establish the cause, ie the mechanism.”
Do you believe there is correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased thermometer temperatures?
A,
You wrote –
“If you were honest you would admit that Swenson (aka Mike Flynn) is one of those people. But I know you wont want to break ranks.”
One of what people? You are not accusing a total stranger (and an anonymous one at that) of dishonesty, are you? Sounds like a wild accusation to me.
Now, you may believe that you can read strangers’ minds, and know what they are thinking, but I don’t believe mind reading is possible. Maybe you can convince others of your supernatural powers – why do you believe you can read minds?
Carry on – I’m just having a laugh at your expense. If I have hurt your feelings, I don’t care. Why should I?
“Do you believe there is correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased thermometer temperatures?”
Obviously there is a correlation to global T. How dis you miss that?
And in that case, the causal mechanism was clearly identified, before most of the rise occurred.
While submarine volcanic eruption experiences H2O scrubbing of SO2 there is sufficient measurement of SO2 effluent injected into the Stratosphere. https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/976962/feart-10-976962-HTML-r1/image_m/feart-10-976962-t004.jpg
For H2O to contribute to the warming effect the ejected water (and SO2) has to dissipate into an extensive blanket which clearly takes time and thus the delayed impact. The ejected SO2 is not insignificant in quantity, it is lesser in relation to the magnitude of the eruption due to its subsea nature but clearly measured and effective. It will have come out the atmosphere quickly but it’s masking impact will have been months.
The other clear correlation is the significantly reduced sea ice extent in Antarctica. Clearly an observed anomaly that does not correlate with a slow gradual warming but a step change albeit short lived.
For those that say correlation and causation must be proven I suggest you explain the cause behind the spike in global temp anomaly Dr Spencer presents above and the reduced Antarctic ice. GW is slow and steady although CO2 has saturated its impact some time ago which tallies with the above data and we are now largely left with methane and H2O being the variables to increase the atmospheric GH effect. https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-radiative-transfer-paper-for-five-greenhouse-gases-explained/
I do realise that religion relies on faith and that the zealots do not discuss or debate, however science relies on observation, measurement and logic. The HTE will continue to reveal its impact and this is likely to result in a reduction in the temperature anomaly over the next 12 months. The upswing in the above data will be short lived, unfortunately the religious bigots are long lived and rather tedious on whichever forum and site they select to campaign on to declare the end of the world is nigh……
David,
It looks as though you don’t offer a mechanism, so it is still correlation = causation.
The problem with that is that other events are correlated, such as the recent international mandate to reduce sulfur aerosol emissions from shipping. It has been argued that this should result in less cloud cover over shipping lanes. Which matches the step -up in Atlantic and Pacific sea surface temperature, which preceded the global air T rise.
The HT eruption has been analyzed, and it has been suggested that the extra stratospheric water produces and added greenhouse effect.
But the calculated effect on T is much smaller than the step-up that has been seen.
So the jury is still out.
On the topic of attribution of recent warming, Robert Rohde at Berkley Earth has been showing the attribution chart below in his monthly blog updates.
There have been some references to contributing elements, but I’m not clear on precisely how this chart was generated.
https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ForcingSchematic-Sep2023.png
https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/
That is an interesting analysis, Mark.
Huh, the seasonal alarmists say it’s Summer in the Southern Hemisphere, but Sydney was cold and wet today. Summer my ass.
Edmonton just had its first snow free November in over 100 years. I’m sure you’re not going to use that as an example of global warming.
Maybe Edmonton temperatures are offsetting Vancouver temperature
ark…”Youll have to ask deniers what they would consider to be a pause. ”
***
The word ‘pause’ was introduced by the IPCC in a p.a.t.h.etic attempt to explain the 15-year flat trend from 1998 – 2012. They could not bring themselves to deal with the reality of no warming for 15 years. NOAA went into such a snit they retroactively changed the SST to show an insignificant trend.
Trenberth, who confided secretly to his alarmist buddies in the CLimtegate emails, that the warming has stopped, declared it a ‘travesty’ that no one knew why. When the emails were exposed he rushed off to find a reason for his ill-advised commentary, finding a sci-fi explanation in the oceans, which he claimed were hiding the excess warming.
Meantime, people like you, with major issues related to appealing to authorities like Trenberth, wave your arms in the air and label anyone who dos not agree with the pseudo-science of the likes of Trenberth and the IPCC, as ‘deniers’.
Not correct. The IPCC used the term “hiatus” after deniers had been referring to the “pause”.
The rest of your comment is a continuation of the fiction.
Oxford definition of hiatus –
“a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity.”
Maybe the IPCC doesn’t have a good grasp of English? You lose again.
Did you miss the whole point yet again, Mikey?
Despite what Gordon claims, deniers were using the word first.
But naysayers don’t care about the point, as long as they get to say nay.
A,
Which word was that? What is a denier anyway? Climate changes continuously and is unpredictable. Do you agree, or are you are a denier?
Not terribly clever of you, oh mighty keyboard warrior!
Antonin Qwerty?
All it takes is a look back to see the context, which you have done but won’t admit to.
The rest was you implicitly admitting to losing by deflecting.
A,
“All it takes is a look back to see the context, which you have done but wont admit to.
The rest was you implicitly admitting to losing by deflecting.”
Ah, more mind reading claims. You are quite mad – nobody can read minds. If you believe you can, you are suffering from some form of mental defect.
What am I supposed to have “lost”? Did I know it, or am I supposed to be admitting to something unknown?
Maybe you could toss a few facts around, rather than bizarre claims of mindreading, and assertions that people are losing things they never knew they had.
Keep it coming. Nothing wrong with a bit of comic relief, is there? Come on, laugh at me! See, that made you feel better, didn’t it?
Antonin Qwerty, do explain in your own words what the difference is between the IPCC use of hiatus and the sceptic’s use of pause?
Did I say there was a difference, or even imply it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1567805
READ.
“READ”? “READ”?
SHOUTING COMMANDS AT PEOPLE MIGHT NOT GAIN THE RESPECT YOU HOPE FOR!
You wrote “Did I say there was a difference, or even imply it.”
Did anybody say you did? You’re sounding just a wee bit defensive there, laddie.
Maybe you should have a nice cup of tea, followed by a good lie down. You are sounding a bit overexcited.
Antonin Qwerty, you seem to accept any word that the IPCC says without question, but question any word from a sceptic. Hence my question on whether there was a difference in your mind?
“The word ‘pause’ was introduced by the IPCC”
No, it was introduced by AGW ‘skeptics’ well before the IPCC talked about it.
It’s astounding how consistently you make up claptrap from whole cloth.
barry,
Why do you find it astounding?
There seem to be more questions than answers.
There seem to be more empty comments than substantive ones.
barry, please stop trolling.
Meanwhile in Finland.
The average temperature in November was mostly 1.5‒3.5 degC below the average for the reference period 19912020, in Finnish Lapland the average temperature was mainly 3‒5.5 degC below the average.
In Sodankyl, Finnish Lapland, average temperature for the reference period 1991-2020 was -5.8 degC. In November 2023 Sodankyl’s average temperature was -10.9 degC, 5.1 degC colder.
November 2023 was 18th coldest out of 116 Novembers since 1908 in Sodankyl, Finland.
In english that would be Sodankyla. Extended ASCII character 132, ”, does not go through / is not allowed.
javs
Just a little hint: you might use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Enter your words or sentences containing UTF-8 characters, and paste the result into the blog’s edit form:
Sodankylä Tromsø ± č â ï
Noticed. Thanks Bindidon.
Thanks for you weather report on that 0.07% of the earth’s surface.
You’re welcome.
Let’s extend the area.
SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute) reports.
The month (November 2023) was colder than normal throughout the country, and in large parts of Norrland (Swedish Lapland), Svealand and also parts of Gtaland, it has not been this cold since November 2010.
November 2010 was 14th coldest November out of those 116 in Sodankyla.
^ That would be Gotaland, not Gtaland.
Congratulations – you’re now up to 0.25% of the world’s surface.
Now find another 49.75%, and repeat for every month of the past 5 years, and you can claim that the earth hasn’t warmed.
In fact I’ll grant you 34.75% if you’re looking for below average, and 14.75% if you’re looking for the bottom quartile.
In case you haven’t noticed I am specifically reporting about the November 2023 average temperatures.
I haven’t claimed Earth has not warmed.
Averaged annual TAVG for 30-year period 1993-2022 in Sodankyla was 0.7 degC warmer than 30-year period 1925-1954.
As long as we understand that this is a regional weather report and says nothing about climate.
Sodankyla’s 30-year periods I mentioned represent rather aptly the regional climate of the Fennoscandia. Fennoscandia’s climate has changed for the better.
The GLOBAL climate has not.
A,
“The GLOBAL climate has not.”
So you say. Upon which particular fantasy do you base your claim?
Maybe you could describe this “GLOBAL climate” for anyone not within your fantasy world?
A,
You wrote –
“As long as we understand that this is a regional weather report and says nothing about climate.”
Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you really believe that you are more than one person?
Very odd.
Couldn’t say. Never lived in GLOBAL climate.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET Norway) reports.
Coldest November since 2010 in Norway. In Norway, November 2023 was cold and ended 3.5 degrees below normal.
You are joking. No summer in the UK and in a very cold spell.
UK area = 244 thousand sq/km
NH area = 255 million sq/km
Globe area = 510 million sq/km
barry,
Maybe Tim lives in the UK, not spread thinly around the globe.
Averages are pointless – as Mark Twain once said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”
Was your comment relevant to anything useful?
barry thinks it is insignificant that no summer and a colder winter in the UK can be written off as a geographical anomaly. That is similar thinking to Barry’s authority figures the IPCC, who think it scientific that a 400+ year mini ice age happened only in Europe while omitting the rest of the planet.
One thing I have noted about alarmists here on Roy’s blog is their insular thinking. Translated, they cannot see beyond the ends of their noses, and that goes straight to the top at the IPCC.
Barry, so let’s take your silly comment to the next stage.
The volume of the solar system is what? and the average temperature of the solar system is going to be a few kelvi at best.
So the odd little record claimed by the alarmists will result in the average temperature increase of the solar system by such a small increase that it wouldn’t be measurable…..
So why dont you try again and make your comment less frivolous.
The solar system is large, planet Earth is small and fragile.
‘So why dont you try again and make your comment less frivolous.’
is a perfect response to your solar system thinking, anon.
Global average temperature is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
No more, no less.
If we only knew what it was.
Averaging numbers is not difficult in a spreadsheet Stephen. You should try it.
Nate says:
”Global average temperature is the average temperature of the Earths surface.”
Hmmmm, thats only true if we measure the temperature of the entire surface.
We could also measure a representative sample of the earth’s surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature the accuracy of which is dependent upon the sample size.
But we don’t do either of those things Nate.
We do exactly that.
Nate we know the sample is non-representative. We have few stations on mountain tops and lots in the valleys. We also have most stations in landscapes altered by man (just building one does that)
Even if you just have a Stevenson screen its going to affect the climate inside the box.
few thermometers in the forests. Having lived in a forest I can tell you its about 10 degrees or more cooler at the surface than in the agricultural fields surrounding the forest on hot days and virtually the same temperature at night.
Yep those are details that don’t change the TRENDs significantly. If you think they do, prove it.
Its not my job. Its the job of those peddling the argument. Unless of course you want to surrender skepticism and believe everything your daddy tells you.
And keep in mind that we are observing tenths of a degree based on known biases (like with elevation of dozens of degrees) seems it would be simple enough to say find the mean elevation of the stations and the mean elevation of the land masses of the earth. Do you have a link.
You also have to deal with the fact it has often been stated that the absolute mean temperature is only accurate to 2 degrees.
“Its not my job.”
In science, if you think all others have done it wrong, you cant just pull it out of your ass, as you do.
You have to demonstrate it. Show that it makes a significant difference, as Roy is trying to do.
Go off and do that.
In science, if you cant demonstrate the error is significant, then your complaints are just hot air.
The measured sea surface temperature is not affected by your issue.
The reanalysis data is most convincing to me.
Nate you can’t derive a more accurate answer than the data that goes into deriving it. Didn’t you learn that in your beginning classes in a applied mathematics in high school?
Yeah reanalysis allows one to use multiple datasets and increase the odds that the error is between the standard deviations between the data sets. . .but what you are suggesting is the figures I used didn’t do that to come up with a standard deviation for a single factor in a data set. But you would be wrong about that.
As I said if you have a reanalysis that comes up with a different answer produce it. As it stands what you have produced doesn’t support your position as did the S&O experiment that you spent dozens of posts claiming various things were wrong with it that weren’t wrong.
“but what you are suggesting is the figures I used didnt do that to come up with a standard deviation for a single factor in a data set.”
Where did you produce figures or any standard deviation?
sorry to mislead you. the figures i used came from sources that properly estimated the error.
take for example just the possible range of natural variation in trenberth 2009.
various measurements vary for mean solar incoming from 342.5 to 339.1. thats more than uah has recorded warming in its history.
assuming the various works are correct how can that be? well solar output changes over time and our distance from the sun is constantly changing by variations in the eccentricity of the orbit based upon the position and influence of the other planets. and where do you see that influence detailed down to minimum length climate periods for the purpose of analyzing trends over those periods? but of course there is no consensus on any of the variables in the Trenberth energy budget.
you say you were convinced by the reanalyzes, but solar reflect varies by more than 20w/m2 between the various analyses. now that isn’t due to co2. you can’t take data like that and convert a sows ear into a silk purse. all that is is a special license for outrageous claims and those claims are rewarded and institutions fight for the Don Kings of the promo world of climate like they fight for football coaches.
“various measurements vary for mean solar incoming from 342.5 to 339.1.”
Completely different topic.
“thats more than uah has recorded warming in its history.”
Which isn’t something that UAH measures! You seem to be very confused, Bill.
Now Nate wants to change the topic. What do you want to talk about now Nate?
Nate makes the outrageous claim that incoming solar is irrelevant to figuring out what the imbalance is.
Actually for the quoted .9w/m2 its obvious the folks that ginned that one up agrees with Nate strongly.
Honestly they didn’t do it that way because they knew it would be subject to very specific reliability charges. So how do you circumvent that criticism?
Well black box climate models work great for that purpose.
Its the usual story that gets foisted on the public.
Nope.
You are hopelessly confused about which thread is which argument.
This one was about
“We could also measure a representative sample of the earths surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature”
Nate says:
”We could also measure a representative sample of the earths surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature”
————————–
Well that may be true but it doesn’t mean anything until you define approximate.
You also said in this thread:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”In science, if you cant demonstrate the error is significant, then your complaints are just hot air.
The measured sea surface temperature is not affected by your issue.
The reanalysis data is most convincing to me.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The discussion is about that and what this thread is about. So far those of your ilk have not defined a level of significance. Seems any global warming to you is significant.
first, You could assuage that concern by stating what level of warming would be significant to you and why.
second, the measured SSTs are affected. There remains a lack of uniformity of measurement and the fact that from that measurement we simply assume that the SST is that temperature when in fact we only gathered the information near surface (for surface waters below the surface). Anybody with experience in monitoring SSTs knows that there is a sharp temperature gradient within a few centimeters of the surface that arises out of evaporative cooling of the surface skin and mixes at a very wide range of rates down from that skin, like when the wind blows and a whitecap breaks over the surface, then depending on wave size you might still not be as deep to eliminate anything more than part of the gradient.
It takes .418 joules of energy to warm a gram of water 0.1c
But to vaporize one gram of water requires that the remaining water must be cooled by 2259 joules of energy.
Finally you claim to have been convinced by a reanalysis. But there are lots of reanalyses so which one convinced you and why that one versus the many others?
So long story short, this thread was not about “various measurements vary for mean solar incoming”.
And the answer to that very clearly presents huge problems for key climate numbers that you claim have been measured to accurate enough of a degree to reliably calculate .9w/m2 imbalance elsewhere in this comment section.
I do notice you don’t want that connection to occur or you would not be complaining. I also notice you haven’t given any answers I asked for of why you were convinced by some reanalysis. I thought you might want to point that out so I can tear that apart also. But I thought wrong.
“you dont want that connection to occur or you would not be complaining. ”
No I want to expose your evasive tactics, such as changing the subject, to obfuscate and avoid having to acknowledge that you were wrong.
We are on to you.
Its not off topic. Understanding the measurement is always done to some level of imperfect accuracy. And knowing the accuracy is absolutely pertinent to that which you might use that number for.
So its totally on topic since the entire discussion of its accuracy is in determining whether science supports your points of view or not.
Auditors are constantly assessing the materiality of accurate measures as accuracy has no real meaning outside of that.
Nah, you just drifted off topic.
Nate continues to desperately obfuscate.
“barry thinks it is insignificant that no summer and a colder winter in the UK can be written off as a geographical anomaly.”
It might be significant in the UK, but as that is a fraction of the global surface area, it doesn’t determine what the global average is.
Which is the point.
How dumb are skeptics when they assume that because the UK is cold, that means everywhere else has to be cold at the same time.
barry, please stop trolling.
The blockage of the polar vortex over the Bering Sea causes an easterly circulation over northern Canada. A smaller polar vortex is forming over Canada.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/DPBdTFD/gfs-t70-nh-f00.png
Let’s talk today about snow in Germoney.
While in northeast we have now 5+cm, the stituation in Bavaria, especially in Munich, is really unusual. Up to 50 cm snowfall last night: that’s a lot indeed.
Form our weather data supplier ‘wetteronline.de’:
” Snow paralyzes traffic in Bavaria
Snow and ice have caused chaos in parts of southern Germany. Bavaria is particularly affected. There is over 40 centimeters of snow in Munich. There’s nothing going on at the airport until Sunday morning. Rail traffic is also often at a standstill. The situation on the streets is hardly better.
Persistent, heavy snowfall has partially paralyzed traffic in Bavaria. More than 30 centimeters of fresh snow also caused chaos in Munich overnight.
Due to the ongoing snowfall, air traffic at Munich Airport has now been suspended until 6 a.m. on Sunday morning. More than 150 takeoffs and landings were canceled there yesterday. ”
*
Yeah. Grrrand Solaaar Minimuuum aheaddd!
Bindinon, so you can easily find an extreme cold record across a large country. But that’s not a surprise as there will always be an extreme event somewhere. Only attribution studies seem to want a big deal of it.
By the way, does that excessive snowfall indicate that the next ice age is on its way, or is global boiling still happening?
Tonight snowfall in England.
https://i.ibb.co/mBsbHX2/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-02-220036.png
It’s a little warmer in Berlin today. I think the temperature will only drop to -4 C at night.
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
Reason #3 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
There are two basic attempts to describe/define the bogus GHE. One involves direct warming of Earth’s surface by CO2. The other involves indirect warming (slowing the cooling) by CO2 acting as insulation. The discussion here is about the first. The “insulation” nonsense will be discussed under Reason 5.
Earth’s average temperature of 288K emits a spectrum with the peak energy having photons of about 10μ wavelength. Lower down the spectrum is the 15μ photon, which is absorbed/emitted by CO2. The cult believes that the 15μ photon is reemitted by CO2, returns to Earth, and causes warming.
CO2 does emit 15μ photons, and some are directed to Earth (called “back-radiation”). But those low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of the 288K surface.
To emphasize the point that CO2 cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface, consider the photon at the peak energy emission from an ice cube. That photon has a wavelength of about 10.65μ. The ice photon is hotter(shorter-wavelength/higher-frequency) than the CO2 photon. If you believe CO2 can warm the 288K surface, then you must believe ice cubes can make it even hotter!
Believing that CO2 can warm the surface just indicates a lack of understanding of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Nice, but
Photons don’t have a temperature.
It has energy and that can be added to a surface.
bob, photons are identified by their wavelengths/frequencies. Their energy is then established. The 15μ photon’s “temperature” refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.
This has been explained to you before, but you’re stuck in a rut. You’re unable to understand the basic physics. You keep running to a CO2 laser, not understanding anything about entropy. You keep believing that nature behaves as a properly engineered, powered device.
You’re not alone in your rut. Norman cannot understand that ice cannot boil water and barry cannot understand that arriving fluxes are not affected by “view factor”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
“The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.”
You are confusing photons from gases with photons from blackbodies, and that shows you don’t no what you are posting about.
Wrong again, bob.
You quoted me correctly, but you were unable to understand the quote: “The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.
A surface emits a spectrum. Gases only emit in spectral lines.
You don’t understand the science so all you’ve got are your false accusations. Maybe it’s time for some of your infamous juvenile profanity. That might impress “anal Norman”, or “view factor” barry. It won’t impress responsible adults.
Science-wise, your cult has NOTHING.
The 15u photons are coming from what imaginary surface Clint R?
The 15μ photons are within Earth’s emitted spectrum, bob.
Earth is NOT imaginary.
Cult children can not understand any of this.
Clint R,
Not the ones that are emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
bob, you seem to be going in circles, as usual.
Start here and let’s see how many laps you can do:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1568551
You can’t learn, but maybe you can get some good exercise….
Clint R,
“The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.”
You are doubling down on your mistake.
I was referring to the 15u photons coming from the atmosphere, not the surface.
You can drive around in circles quoting yourself but it’s
Clint Rs all the way down.
Bumbling Bobby,
Unfortunately, the surface cools at night – the photons emitted by the atmosphere dont appear to be having any effect at all! Even when a low level inversion exists which makes the atmosphere hotter than the surface, the surface continues to cool.
Magic bobdroege SkyDragon photons dont count in the real world.
You’re off with the fairies again.
Swenson,
You are drooling in your Maypo again, maybe you could post something on topic?
Bumbling Bobby,
Unfortunately, the surface cools at night the photons emitted by the atmosphere dont appear to be having any effect at all! Even when a low level inversion exists which makes the atmosphere hotter than the surface, the surface continues to cool.
Magic bobdroege SkyDragon photons dont count in the real world.
Youre off with the fairies again.
They make the surface warmer than it would be without them.
That’s not no effect.
bob…photons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. The frequency of a photons from a cooler surface is lower than the frequency from a hotter surface. That means a hotter surface cannot absorb the photons from a cooler surface.
Ergo, only photons of a specific frequency can be abosorbed by any surface and no photons from a colder surface can be absorbed by a warmer surface.
It would help, Bob, if you identified the ‘energy’ to which you refer. different forms of energy have different properties.
Gordon, you say that no photons from a cold surface can be absor.bed into a hotter surface, or words to that effect.
So what happens to these photons?
Anon,
Damn, don’t spoil my fun!
That’s my stock question for SkyDragon cultists. What happens to all the photons of radio wavelengths? What about the green photons which went straight through the window? Where do the visible light photons from an LED flashlight go when you turn it off?
And so on.
They have no clue, but they are famous for claiming bizarre things – the energy from a colder atmosphere can warm the surface – when even the radiation from a warmer atmosphere (a low level nighttime inversion, for example) still cannot increase the temperature of a colder surface.
But hey, I can’t lay claim to exclusive rights to any laughter to be had at the expense of people who believe they can make thermometers hotter with CO2 (or H2O).
Swenson, the alarmists will say that the green photons are good photons and should be protect and cherished. All other photons will be considered as enemies against their cult and should be cancelled.
Same with CO2, there is good CO2 that is from natural sources and the evil CO2 from fossil fuels. The plants haven’t gone to the woke universities so they haven’t had the chance to discriminate between the good Vs evil CO2 molecules.
Sounds like a great job for Tony Fauci. Gain of function research and cloning of plants that won’t take advantage of extra CO2 in the air. Maybe even come up with an AI robot to run around and infect all existing plants. We already know that’s his area of competency.
“The frequency of a photons from a cooler surface is lower than the frequency from a hotter surface. ”
No. The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.
“That means a hotter surface cannot absorb the photons from a cooler surface.”
Strike two. Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it.
Suppose 0 C CO2 emits a 15 um photon. And 200 C CO2 emits a 15 um photon. The two identical photons arrive at a 100 C surface. Either photon gets absorbed with equal probability at the 100 C surface. Neither identical photon is ‘prevented’ from being absorbed.
Tim,
You are off with the fairies, picking irrelevant and miniscule nits as fast as you can move your hands in your imagination.
You say particularly ridiculous things like “Strike two. Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it.”
Here’s a fact for you – submerging a block of ice in water does not prevent the ice from emitting photons (not that you even know what a photon is – copy and paste your Wikipedia definition and I’ll tear it to shreds).
The water will actually cool. The ice is colder than the water.
Now if you are insane enough to claim either that the water absorbs the photons and increases in temperature, or that the water absorbs the photons and does not increase in temperature, you deserve all the derisive laughter which will follow either statement.
So where do the photons from a block of ice submerged in water go?
You resemble a donkey trying to convince a monkey that you Einstein in disguise!
Come on, Tim, provide an unambiguous answer. The world wants to know!
“Now if you are insane enough to claim either that the water absorbs the photons and increases in temperature, or that the water absorbs the photons and does not increase in temperature, you deserve all the derisive laughter which will follow either statement.”
You clearly don’t understand the relevant physics at all.
I claim (and all competent physicists claim) that:
* materials emit photons based on their temperature
* materials warm/cool based on the net thermal energy in/out.
Cold ice emits photons — which are indeed absorbed by the warmer water. Warmer water emits more photons (and with a higher average energy), which are absorbed by the ice. Therefore the net thermal energy via radiation is from warmer water to cooler ice. The ice warms and the water cools.
Moving on, you agree that “submerging a block of ice in water does not prevent the ice from emitting photons”. So there are indeed photons emitted by the ice.
“So where do the photons from a block of ice submerged in water go?”
I know that they are indeed absorbed by the water, but that there are simply more photons from the water back to ice, so the ice warms and the water cools.
Where do YOU think they go?
Tim if the photons go they must be reflected because there is no evidence that photons are lost in the direction of a warmer object.
“You resemble a donkey trying to convince a monkey that you Einstein in disguise!”
Swenson’s figured out its better skip the science altogether, in his arguments.
His mother is very disappointed in him.
While Bill seems content to just declare his own new science ‘facts’
“Tim if the photons go they must be reflected”
No thats not science Nate. The photons might not go. And if they go they may be like waves against a breakwater and just reflect. What we do know is they don’t cause the alleged recipient to get hotter.
“What we do know is they dont cause the alleged recipient to get hotter.”
Speak for yourself.
Again, you make up your own facts, offering no evidence.
Shameless, Bill.
Nate lies again.
He knows the results of the Vaughn Pratt experiment.
He knows the results of the Woods experiment
And he has read the paper by Seim and Olsen
And he refuses to admit to their results all the while never ever providing a paper that shows a successful experiment.
Woods -not relevant
Pratt??
Seim – bad exp as explained ad nauseum, and he admits that laws of physics cannot account for it.
Been over IR detectors with you at length, which DO abs.orb photons from colder objects.
Nate thinks science is a process of waving ones hand and hoping that ignorant people will actually believe it.
When Bill doesnt understand basic science, he feels he can just make it up!
A more detailed response is that you need review Kirchhoff’s Law.
It states that a high emissivity surface will abs.orb, rather than reflect, nearly all light hitting it.
And there is nothing in this law about rejecting light coming from colder surfaces. And how would a surface know that anyway?
There is no LAW OF PHYSICS consistent with the idea that cold-source emitted photons (or light) must be reflected from warmer surfaces.
But if you can find one, please show it!
Nate the same way that electricity does it.
”And how would a surface know that anyway?” Whats the matter Nate? Can’t you ask the surface yourself. ROTFLMAO!
So you acknowledge that this has no science rationale:
“Tim if the photons go they must be reflected “
well what do you call it when light fails to warm something? Albedo? Here we can have near black bodies and the 3rd grader radiation model fails.
So no science rational for a body of high emissivity to reflect light from a colder body.
-There is no physics support for that. You don’t offer any.
-You can’t tell us how, even in principle, a body could selectively reject only light coming from colder sources.
Oh well, another mole whacked.
I said the same way that electricity rejects a voltage of a smaller potential.
I am not saying its science I am just pointing out that despite your bloviating you haven’t provided any evidence that it doesn’t. And since this is the proposition of the CAGW activists demanding action without first producing the science the burden is upon you to produce, not me.
“I am not saying its science”
Gald to hear you acknowledge that. Electricity behaves is not light.
“I am just pointing out that despite your bloviating you havent provided any evidence that it doesnt.”
Of course I did, Kirchoffs law is well established. Unless YOU can show that it can be violated when light comes from a cold source, and how that happens, you are just bloviating.
Arrggh,
Electricity behaves differently from light, so not science.
Nate continues his lying and his science by declaration.
And of course while the burden isn’t on the skeptics they found it easy to show that CO2 isn’t insulation. After using Modtran to calculate the expected warming effect from the amount of CO2 used in the experiment, the experiment failed to show any measurable warming.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
“Nate continues his lying and his science by declaration.”
Loser talk, Bill.
Sorry that you have no alternative laws of physics that support your thinking.
Again for people who don’t understand how science works, to become a law of physics, as Kirchhoff’s radiation law has, it had to be tested and confirmed many many hundreds of experiments.
Those aren’t cancelled by a single, questionable experiment, whose authors can’t even rule out experimental error (lost heat).
To overturn an established law of physics requires extraordinary evidence.
But if you are determined to believe contrarians MUST BE right, at the expense of all other known facts, then you can certainly do so, but it won’t be justified by the evidence.
Nate continues showing he is a proud card carrying member of a gypsy driveway paver crew selling an untested theory about CO2.
I show him an experiment that shows it doesn’t work and he declines provide an experiment showing it working.
“I show him an experiment”
Whose results both you and its authors don’t understand in terms of physics.
You still can’t explain how a body can filter and reject radiation (photons) if they come from a colder source?
“selling an untested theory about CO2.”
Nah, the topic of this thread is your claim that photons from cold sources must be reflected by warm bodies, which violates Kirchhoff’s law.
Please include your sources Nate.
https://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/classes/ge108/week3/lec6.pdf
There. One of many.
Now pls provide any source that gives a rational scientific reason why warm bodies should reflect light (photons) from cold bodies, which would be a violation of Kirchhoff’s law.
Please make sure it explains how warm bodies can filter photons by their source temperature.
there is nothing in there that prohibits what i said. you are just too focused on a photon being a particle as opposed to a wave. the law is just a mathematical formula that describes behavior but says nothing whatsoever about any substance of the photon.
You ask for evidence, get it, reject it, then offer none yourself.
That is weak, Bill.
Again, Kirchhoff’s law states that a high emissivity body abs.orbs nearly 100% of the radiation that hits it.
If it receives radiation, now matter what the source temp, it must abs.orb nearly 100% of it.
Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that warm bodies must reflect light from cold bodies?
What is the logical rationale for that?
How can a warm body discern light has been emitted from a cold source?
You take Kirchhoff’s law too literally.
The way physics laws are taught is by analogy.
then you imagine anything that doesn’t hold to that analogy is a violation of the law.
There are AT LEAST two ways and possibly more. Particle theory and wave theory are the two known ways to satisfy it. Two methods to achieve the same result. Perhaps there are more known ways but 2 is good enough for me to make my point.
You should note in the story you provided that this only occurs up and until equilibrium is reached.
But you seem to believe that if you block the emissions of the heated object it will continue to warm to a temperature greater than equilibrium in violation of SB’s Law.
Equilibrium occurs when the input equals the output period. No fussing, no fudging, no imagining 3rd grader radiation models stuff where the input becomes greater because you blocked the output. Thats getting into the territory of the pile of bricks in the room heating up to a temperature greater than the room.
In Tim’s example of the coffee pot there need be no change in temperature of the sky for the coffee pot to have a different temperature. It will change with a different temperature in the local environment.
Further the coffee pot is by definition in his experiment hotter than the local environment but its too small to affect the environment in any measured way.
If you create a coffeepot big enough to affect the local environment then its going to warm the local environment because its hotter. If its colder its going to cool the local environment similar to dropping an ice cube into a cup of water.
there isn’t much more to say. I will just await the next silly experiment you try to imagine doing something other than the above.
Laws of physics are not analogies.
You offer only handwaving. Not evidence.
The laws of physics are not analogies. They are quite explicit.
Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that warm bodies must reflect light from cold bodies?
What is the logical rationale for that?
How can a warm body discern light has been emitted from a cold source?
You simply havent made the case.
nate my statement was a conditional statement. apparently you have no concept of logic as this isn’t the only time you have failed to recognize one just in the last couple of days. obvious i don’t know because nobody has established that a photon exists in order to warm the warmer object and we already know the warmer object doesn’t get warmer even if one exists.
Cop out. You have no evidence. Period. Your claim was hot air.
Unlike you Nate I don’t jump to conclusions. My folks said I was like that as a baby and always had an intense interest in how things actually worked and never took anybody’s word for it. So much to do, so little time.
You were the one making the unsupported claim that light from a cold body must be reflected from a warm body.
We have learned not to take your word for it.
In context if as you believe any light absor.bed is going to warm the abor.bing molecule and experiments show no warming occurs then your theory is wrong such that if a photon arrived at the surface in question then it must have been reflected if no warming occurred.
Its amazing how block headed you can be.
Hunter wrote, in part:
Of course, that assumes that said “experiments” are valid. Your repeated reference to the S&O experiment, which is deeply flawed, does not refute anything. Hunter continues:
That conclusion is simply a empty assertion, without any supporting evidence. And, as I demonstrated, there’s evidence that the IR EM from a colder body can cause a warmer body to warm further.
Only extremely gullible people will believe ONE experiment, lacking any rational explanation, undoes hundreds of previous ones, that are in any case ignored.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter wrote, in part:
experiments show no warming occurs then your theory is wrong
Of course, that assumes that said experiments are valid. Your repeated reference to the S&O experiment, which is deeply flawed, does not refute anything.
Well it certainly is valid to the claims of the early days that the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by the 3rd grader radiation model.
Now its down to no description given and a claim it must be CO2.
And Nate thought that had been verified such that he produced a paper that was no more than a model and had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height. So no S&O is not a test of the increase in emission height but also the third grader radiation model bandied about for a decade or more isn’t how the greenhouse effect works either.
So obviously we aren’t ever going to see a blueprint until science determines if it works or not and how it works if it works. But its clear at some point you guys decided to abandon the need for science.
“model and had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height.”
Bill, you really did not understand that paper, and you are misrepresenting it here.
Nate confirms he doesn’t understand the impact of an if,then statement. Perhaps if he could find a more recent paper solving the matter? Maybe there is none as nobody has brought this issue to the attention of our bosses yet so they can fund 6 rebuttal papers.
“Nate confirms he doesnt understand the impact of an if,then statement.”
Quote the statements from the paper, with context, that support this exaggerated spin:
“had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height.”
This is just blather.
Gordon,
“photons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface.”
I was referring to photons from CO2 gas, not from a surface, and CO2 emits the same frequencies of photons no matter what the temperature of the gas. And it’s from individual molecules of CO2 anyway, which don’t have temperature.
And also, photons have no way to measure the temperature of the surface they are about to interact with, only if the energy levels are available will they be absorbed.
bumbling bobby,
You are a complete dingleberry. No, the Earth did not heat up from absolute zero to its present temperature, and all matter above absolute zero emits IR, the frequency of the emitted radiation varying with temperature.
You will find that two bodies in thermal equilibrium by definition are at the same temperature – for example two masses of gas of different composition. At the same temperature, they emit and absorb precisely the same frequencies of photons – you cannot distinguish them by measuring the frequency of the emitted photons. A slab of gold at the same temperature, in equilibrium with the the gases, will emit and absorb exactly the same photons. How could it not? This is what experiment shows.
If you have any experimental results to back up your rambling incoherence, feel free to amaze me.
A dingleberry trying to convince a donkey and a chimpanzee that the smarter than both. Maybe he is?
“You will find that two bodies in thermal equilibrium by definition are at the same temperature for example two masses of gas of different composition. At the same temperature, they emit and absorb precisely the same frequencies of photons you cannot distinguish them by measuring the frequency of the emitted photons.”
If the two gases are different, then of course you can distinguish them, because they emit different spectrums.
“A dingleberry trying to convince a donkey and a chimpanzee that the smarter than both. Maybe he is?”
I can sell you a verb, for fifty bucks.
Sorry Gordon,
“bobphotons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface.”
That’s not true at all, even for blackbodies which emit a spectrum of frequencies, not just one frequency.
Individual atoms or molecules emit based on the transition energy levels available in the molecule or atom. And since individual atoms or molecules do not have a temperature, those atoms and molecules are not emitting frequencies based on temperature.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
barry…”Yes, you can see the pause here”.
***
No, Barry, what you see is abject propaganda from ijits who think it is amusing to dress up as Nazis and impersonate a physicist. Theur defining hour may have been the illegitimate study in which they stole the work of Naomi Oreskes to claim 97% of scientists agree on global warming. You embarrass all Australians by quoting this drivel.
By posting garbage from skepticalscience, you reveal your true alarmist roots. You have no interest in real science, only in the pap offered by alarmist authority figures.
Your graphic from SkS, presuming to represent the truth, shows a trend ranging from 0.3C to 1.3C over 5.3 decades, which works out to about 0.19C/decade. If that was true, it should be about 1C warmer here in Vancouver, Canada than in 1970 and it is not.
Bellman chimes in with this gem…”The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade”. So, the trend according to SkS has been 0.19C/decade yet Bellman is now claiming 0.41C/decade over 5 years. A quick check of the UAH graph above shows a relatively flat trend since 2018 with the recent extremes skewing the trend since 2018. But, hey, why let the truth get in the way of alarmist fiction?
Omitted from the mix since 1970 are mysterious step warmings that have never been explained. The sudden 0.2C warming in 1977 had several scientists wanting to erase it from the record as a mistake. That happened 10 years before the formation of the IPCC but I doubt that it is mentioned in IPCC review notes. The sudden spurt led to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
There have been at least two similar step increases since 1977. What caused them, certainly not a trace gas?
This is the key point. If ocean oscillations can suddenly increase the global average by 0.2C over 1 year, what can a combined effect of multiple oscillations do? Tsonis et al, concluded that ocean oscillations working in phase and out of phase could explain all warming and cooling.
I can do the same graph myself with UAH data:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1979.75/to:1989.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987.80/to:1997.34/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/trend/plot/uah6/trend
Hilariously, each of the ‘pauses’ has a steeper negative gradient than the previous. And yet the whole series has a statistically significant positive trend (none of the negative trends are statistically significant).
No propaganda – just exposing the silliness of of ‘skeptics’ touting a pause after every time there is a new higher peak to start from.
“Your graphic from SkS, presuming to represent the truth, shows a trend ranging from 0.3C to 1.3C over 5.3 decades, which works out to about 0.19C/decade. If that was true, it should be about 1C warmer here in Vancouver, Canada than in 1970 and it is not.”
Again the asinine straw man that whatever happens globally must be mirrored on the local scale or AGW doesn’t exist.
As I said above, the seasonal alarmists say it’s Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. But Sydney was cold and wet the last couple of days, so I know that Summer is a hoax!
And just in case you’re too daft to get it, that was sarcasm. 50/50 on whether you get the analogy.
barry,
According to your calculations, when do the seas start boiling? Or does the warming trend stop in the future?
Come on, you’re a clever chap, surely! Help out those less intelligent than you.
Show your equations and workings, if you feel like copying and pasting them.
Only joking – you can’t predict the future at all, can you?
Barry, it seems to be yourself that comes out with strawman arguments.
You use an extreme hot record from across the world as proof, but any cold record you ignore. So it is you who seems to ignore the data.
As a non-alarmist I prefer to see the data in it’s entireties Vs your alarmists cherry picking of data provided by your cult.
I don’t use “extreme hot weather from across the world as proof” of anything.
It’s you, not me, building straw men.
The data in those links are the data in entirety, taken straight from the UAH web page that provides them. The link is in the article at the top of this page.
You have no idea at all about this, do you.
As Anon claimed, you have little or no interest in understanding why temperatures suddenly rise after a 6 year flat trend. All you do is push your alarmist propaganda.
As I’ve talked about this endlessly with you over 7 years and explained that pauses are just cherrypicking start and end points in noisy data, the idea that I have ‘no interest’ is just silly waffle from you.
“your alarmist propaganda”
Doesn’t exist. Please quote me saying anything alarming about global climate.
barry…”I can do the same graph myself with UAH data:”
***
That’s the point, Barry, you, an amateur, can take UAH data and show a negative trend using w4trees. All you are demonstrating is a penchant for alarmist propaganda. When you turn to SkS to support you, it suggests you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
No the point is that in noisy data you can find any number of ‘pauses’ just by cherrypicking your start of the trend with a high anomaly and ending the trend analysis with a low anomaly.
THAT is chicanery.
barry,
Here you go – no cherry picking at all.
Surface originally – molten
Surface now – mostly not molten.
My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.
Your conclusion? Do you think the surface heated up?
“My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.”
Except for the last 20,000 y of warmer temps, then the last 100 y of additional warming, which you always ignore.
Why?
barry,
Here you go no cherry picking at all.
Surface originally molten
Surface now mostly not molten.
My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.
Your conclusion? Do you think the surface heated up?
Trying to weasel around what I said, you wrote –
“Except for the last 20,000 y of warmer temps, then the last 100 y of additional warming, which you always ignore.”
I know you can’t help being yourself, but why do you think that “warmer temps” started 20,000 years ago? Is that when the GHE which you can’t describe, started? Are you quite mad?
” why do you think that warmer temps started 20,000 years ago?”
Evasion by distraction.
The point was that the Earth warmed since then. So your theory that it only ever cools, as much as you love it, is WRONG.
Feynman is very disappointed that you keep on declaring it so anyway!
Nate says:
”The point was that the Earth warmed since then. So your theory that it only ever cools, as much as you love it, is WRONG.”
And what do you have for evidence that the cause of warming changed since then?
Stalking me again?
Nate gets upset when somebody points out to him that his logic has gapping holes in it. Like his idea that the moon in its motion has particles going in multiple directions at the same time.
Bill gets upset when he loses arguments with me elswhere, so he takes his grievance parade on the road.
Nate your narcissism is showing.
Speaking of unprecedented anomalies, did anyone mention yet that Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest ever this year, that it beat 2022 for the lowest March minimum, and that the 3 months August through October have each smashed the record low for the those months?
https://tinyurl.com/muppuvxb
Click on ‘Antarctic’ top left.
Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, has been lower than average again this year, but not even close to record-breaking material.
barry,
“Speaking of unprecedented anomalies, did anyone mention yet that Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest ever this year, that it beat 2022 for the lowest March minimum, and that the 3 months August through October have each smashed the record low for the those months?”
I don’t anybody has mentioned it yet, so you doing so is unprecedented.
Your completely irrelevant weather report is duly noted, and will be filed in the circular filing cabinet (waste paper basket) at the appropriate time.
Thank you for your input.
Every post makes clearer that Swenson has no interest in the topic of this blog.
Then why is he here? It is a mystery.
Nate,
Everything is a mystery to you.
That’s because you are not terribly bright. No mystery there.
barry
” … did anyone mention yet … ”
Yes. Every month.
Here are 3 links to daily sea ice extent charts.
1. Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
2. Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
3. Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
The charts are updated below the permanent links, so anyone interested can bookmark them.
*
The simultaneous extent drop at the end of November looks a bit strange, to say the least. No idea where that comes from.
*
OK, Arctic is below average, but that is no difficult task because the mean of 1981-2010 was very high.
2023 is similar to 2021/22 – way above 2020 and 2019.
Thanks for the charts. I haven’t checked out global sea ice for a few years. Looks like 2023 is going to be the lowest extent on record, and by some margin.
barry, please stop trolling.
So if the guy on CNN is correct that we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again, this must be the long-feared tipping point. A new baseline has started.
On the other hand, if the temperature falls later in 2024 or 2025 — possibly dramatically like it did in 1999 — then we need some explanation, or the possibility that climate really is more complex than human minds can analyze. At a minimum, it would show that CO2 is not regulating the temperature of earth. I do not think we are seeing the effect of a sudden El Nino as some have suggested, although it is probably a contributing factor.
Tim, no the media will just ignore any of their previous claims. But will then double down on their next wild claim. There is already a move to muddy the water between mis/mal/dis information.
“So if the guy on CNN is correct that we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
Neither named nor quoted. Sounds like you or someone else completely invented what this mystery guy said.
I do not have the exact quote, but it is something to the effect that this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year, so this is actually the coolest month we will ever see again.
Here is your CNN climate expert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Weir
“After graduating from Victory Christian High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma he briefly attended Oral Roberts University before transferring to Pepperdine University in Malibu, California[1] where he earned a degree in journalism and creative writing.”
“we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
Becomes
“this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year”
barry,
And the year after? What’s the advertised range of your crystal ball?
Or do you truly believe you can see into the future? Can you read minds as well?
C’mon Barry. You can do better. The July and August records were world-wide records. It was particularly hot in North America and Europe, but the record was reported for the world.
I watched Bill Weir live on CNN making those statements. He was in NY City standing by a body of water that was probably the Hudson River.
The guy has a long record or making emotional reports that highlight his complete lack of scientific knowledge. But nobody ever tries to correct him — not even Michael Mann who is also a frequent guest on many media networks cheering on about how the USA alone can stop climate change.
Instead of vague reconstructions of what you think some journalist said, you could a) find a quote, b) not rely on MSM news for your advice, which sensationalises everything. You may as well complain that the sky is blue in daytime.
At worst you sensationalised whatever he said sensationalised. At best, you just “re-interpeted” what he said.
Grandpas can rant on the porch to their hearts content. It’s usually pointless asking them to verify anything they say. They immediately make that someone else’s problem.
Thank you again Barry for reinforcing the fact that you have no legitimate response except to accuse me of being both incompetent AND dishonest. I take that from you as a compliment.
What would your theoretical answer be if the most watch news network in the world (their claim) was putting out pure nonsense about climate? Does that matter?
“except to accuse me”
C’mon Tim, you can do better.
Take some responsibility for your exaggeration. The guy never said “we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
He is one journalist, not the spokesman for Climate Science.
And scientists DO say that next year could be warmer still because of El Nino.
> the record was reported for the world.
Wait. Are you suggesting that AMERICA is not the world?
Only joking:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/06/exp-hottest-temp-bill-weir-live-fst-070609aseg3-cnni-world.cnn
Sounds like you need to work on your memory!
“What would your theoretical answer be if the most watch news network in the world (their claim) was putting out pure nonsense about climate?”
I don’t have a theoretical answer for this, just a real one.
Now Nate wants to defend Bill Weir. He seems like the last person anyone would want to defend. To clear, if it wasn’t already, he was talking about the specific month, but those were his words. Here is my statement again:
“I do not have the exact quote, but it is something to the effect that this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year, so this is actually the coolest month we will ever see again.”
For further clarification he meant that July or August of this year would be the coolest July or August we would ever see. His words and his intent was that blunt. He was talking about a world record.
Click on the damn video, TF.
Then apologize.
Tim only knows how to blame others, even when he is the source of the error.
Nate, I have previously suggested that you lose credibility as you adopt the same style of commentary as these other people. Do you really want to be taken seriously?
The strawman is now fully in play. Someone posted a video from CNN that shows an interview with Bill Weir from a different time and with a different anchor from the one I described. That discussion has no relevance to the report that I saw live with him standing outside next to a body of water. Nonetheless, you folks allege that I must be wrong, even though Bill has done more than one interview at CNN. He is after all their official climate expert.
I have a DVR with a buffer, so I was able to replay that interview I saw live. I wanted to make sure I heard him correctly. I am certain he was claiming that those months would always be warming in the future, and that it was due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. CNN is not alone. The CBS News website has at least two different reporters who post ridiculous commentary disguised as science reporting.
You and barry seem to be grasping at straws to build your strawman. Many of these other people are already irrelevant. Is that your goal?
“Nate, I have previously suggested that you lose credibility as you adopt the same style of commentary as these other people. Do you really want to be taken seriously?”
How can YOU be taken seriously, when you simply MAKE UP things said by journalists?
And you refuse to own up to it.
Did the guy ever say we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again or not?
If not, why are you claiming he did?
I’m sure we can find Fox News or NewsMax anchors who are climate change deniers.
If I can find one doing that, so what?
None of them are the spokesman for Climate Science.
“Nonetheless, you folks allege that I must be wrong, even though Bill has done more than one interview at CNN.”
You’re right because Weir does lots of interviews at CNN?
Or your memory could be faulty. The proposition you stated seemed unlikely even for the sensationalist MSM news services. It’s no one else’s fault if you can’t corroborate it.
“CNN is not alone. The CBS News website has at least two different reporters who post ridiculous commentary disguised as science reporting.”
We can all find reporters saying the darndest things, but perhaps you could find anyone at CBS or CNN or any other communist news service saying ‘we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again.’
tim s…”…it would show that CO2 is not regulating the temperature of earth”.
***
That is already known in science. With a mixed gas, the amount of heat one gas can diffuse into the overall gas is dependent on its mass percent. That means what it says, the percentage of mass that gas makes up of the entire gas mass. That varies slightly molecule to molecule based on the individual atomic masses of each atom in the molecule. In that case, CO2 is slightly heavier than N2 or O2, having the extra carbon atom.
All the same, it does not amount to a hill of beans. The concentration of CO2 is rated as 0.04% making its mass percent about 0.06%. That percent translates almost directly to degrees C based on the overall warming in the gas of 1C. For every 1C warming, CO2 accounts for about 0.06C and N2/O2 for about 0.99C.
Alarmist science is based on the quaint notion that CO2 can add 9% to 25% of the heat. No science to back the claim, just consensus.
ant…”The IPCC used the term hiatus after deniers had been referring to the pause”.
***
Makes no sense. The idea behind a ‘pause’ or a ‘hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend, and that a flat trend is merely a temporary interruption. As a skeptic, I think the warming trend is a temporary situation, a 170 year recovery from the 400+ year cooling produced by the Little Ice Age.
Remember Monty Python’s black knight ?
Both arms and both legs hacked off by Arthur yet still wants to continue the fight.
Hilarious.
When did 15 C air temperature become warm?
When you spent last night at -15 C.
You asked.
“Oddly enough, 1913 was also the year that saw Death Valley’s coldest temperature. On January 8, the temperature dropped to 15F (-10C) at Furnace Creek.”
I live somewhat close to hottest place in world, but where I live I have only seen about -4 C.
It’s a less extreme place. And in my weekly forecast it’s only drop just below freezing this week. And was a bit colder last week.
The proof of global warming is the hottest temperature {and coldest temperature] was over 100 years ago.
Or global warming is about a more uniform global air temperature.
“The idea behind a pause or a hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend, “
No. If I ‘pause’ my TV, that does not imply unending never ending TV watching. If I pause climbing a mountain, it does not imply a steady, infinite mountain.
A ‘pause’ in warming implies neither “linear” nor “unending”. It merely implies a trend of some sort is expected to resume the future (the same as the TV watching or mountain climbing). And no one expects the trend to be ‘never ending’ since would imply arbitrarily large temperatures in the distant future.
So you are wrong about who used the word first AND wrong about what the word means. [Cue one more limb getting hacked of the black knight.]
Tim Folkerts, so by omission you forget plateau which is another type of pause or hiatus. So you want the temperature to keep rising, whereas the plateau would indicate a following downward trend. This indicates that you filter the data throught your confirmation bias.
“Tim Folkerts, so by omission you forget plateau …”
No. I was simply responding to the original claim that a ‘pause’ must imply a never ending linear trend.
“So you want …”
It is not about what I want. It is not about what you want. It is not about what anyone wants. It is about what science predicts.
Despite what many people here think, there is a very simple causal relationship between more CO2 and higher temperatures. Certainly there are MANY other factors (solar input, earth’s orbit, shifting continents, and volcanoes to name a few). But one factor is CO2, and the predictions keep getting confirmed. There have been several multi-year ‘pauses’ in satellite record … and every time so far, they have been followed by warming. It is not ‘bias’ when the data objectively supports one conclusion.
tim f…”If I pause my TV, that does not imply unending never ending TV watching. If I pause climbing a mountain, it does not imply a steady, infinite mountain”.
***
Good grief, Tim, your logic is getting zanier with each post. A while back you claimed that the addition of ink to produce a 0.04% water solution would muddy the entire solution while comparing that to a 0.04% concentration of CO2 in air warming the entire atmosphere. You based that on adding ink to a glass of water, what if you added he same amount to a reservoir, or a lake?
These things are like comparing apples to oranges. Pausing a TV program being played back after taping or pausing while climbing a mountain has nothing to do with a pause in an ever-increasing global average temperature claimed due to increasing atmospheric CO2. That’s especially true when the heat added by CO2 is insignificant.
“what if you added he same amount to a reservoir, or a lake?”
Well, then it would no longer be 0.04%, now would it?
It would be something like 0.0000004% (400 parts per trillion) for an Olympic swimming pool (or add more zeroes for your favorite size reservoir or lake). Such a concentration of ink in water would have little impact, just like such a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have little impact.
My point still stands. Any argument that ‘400 ppm is just too small to matter’ is zany. Concentrations of 400 ppm (or less) can and do have large impacts.
And back to the original claim: “The idea behind a pause or a hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend …”
Which is ‘zany’?
* a pause implies a never ending linear trend
* a pause can be in a non-linear, finite trend.
Are you arguing that this is correct? That “pause” implies a never ending linear trend?
IPCC referred to the pause in the 2013 IPCC. Fake skeptics introduced the idea a few years earlier. Here’s a post at Judith Curry’s on the topic, and the word “Pause” is even in the title of it.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/
IPCC included the topic because of the loud noise the ‘skeptic’ community was making about temps since 1998.
You know nothing, Gordon Robertson.
barry
The pause exists only in the LT data computed by UAH (totally) and by NOAA STAR (partly) out of a mix of MT, TP and LS soundings:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T5692_-6rsacO96ckFaZbpMt8CcJvmLV/view
For both the UAH and NOAA STAR time series I see in the data that from Jan 1997 till Dec 2014 the linear trend is near 0, while for the NOAA and JMA surface time series, the trend for this period is ~ 0.12 C / decade.
*
Maybe this rather unusually strong temperature peak at the surface and in the lower troposphere explains the simultaneous sea ice extent drop at both poles.
*
The higher we go up in the atmospheric layers, the lower the peak:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jhAF_6xS8ZiSLlN6voeayJUc2RyxIggV/view
binny…”The pause exists only in the LT data computed by UAH…”
***
The IPCC bases their temperature series on surface stations from alarmist sources like NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut. They relegated UAH to the back-burners. The irony is that NOAA showed the same flat trend till the IPCC announced the so-called hiatus. It was after the claim by the IPCC that NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to eliminate the trend.
None of what you wrote is true, Gordon.
IPCC uses Had.CRU as the main surface dataset, and it doesn’t just use surface stations, it also uses sea surface temperatures for its global temp record.
In the 2013 IPCC report (AR5), where they mentioned the ‘pause’ that ‘skeptics’ had been blogging about for a few years, the trend of Had.CRU, which the IPCC noted in the report in the ‘pause’ section, was 0.05 C/decade fort the 1998 to 2012 period – the ‘pause’ at that time.
Today, the Had.CRU record still has the same exact trend.
I just ran a regression on Had.CRU data for 1998 to 2012 (inclusive), and the trend is 0.052 C/decade.
So what else did you get wrong?
The satellite data also get a mention in IPCC AR5 (and the latest report, AR6). In fact, there are four sections under global temperature in AR5: 1. land temperature, 2. sea surface temperature, 3. combined land and sea surface temperature, and 4. upper air temperature. Each gets an equivalent amount of pages devoted to them.
and do they get equal treatment in the Advise to Policy Makers?
Nope, only a mention. As people live on the surface and not 4 kilometres off the ground, and as the satellite records are only 40 years long, I think that’s probably reasonable for the summary. There’s no qualitative difference between the satellite and surface data sets for an overview. They all show warming over the satellite period.
nevermind that the sampling program isn’t representative right? nevermind that the theory of warming allegedly occurs and is greatest at some unidentified place way up above the clouds, right? nevermind that because the increase in upper atmosphere temperatures (the hotspot theory zone of the atmosphere is projected to be higher than the surface and that isn’t showing up in data measured data we can skip that part in the summary for policymakers, right? nevermind that surface warming is less than projected by models we can also ignore that right?.
barry joins Tim F’s class of illogical arguments. The stoppage in warming was being discussed by Trenberth and his cronies in the Climategate emails much earlier than 2012. Trenberth noticed the lack of a warming trend circa 2005. He claimed the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why.
The IPCC would not review such comments, made by alarmists, till the 2012 review. All they did was verify what Trenberth lacked the ingrity to reveal to the scientific community much earlier.
Not to be put off by science, NOAA went back and retroactively changed the SST to show a warming. This is the kind of chicanery supported by Barry and his alarmist brethern.
The change in NOAA’s global temp record 1998-2012 went from 0.039 C/decade to 0.086 C/decade when they adopted the new SST dataset. This set the skeptiverse aflame.
The only conclusion about climate, that can be derived from the available scientific theory and data, is that no conclusion is possible. There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.
One conclusion that is possible, for those who passed the final exams in a rigorous college physics program, is that increasing CO2 from fossil burning must have some effect. People who claim they know exactly what that effect is, or that CO2 is the most significant effect, are either dishonest or did not pass the final exams.
Tim S,
You are right, of course. The atmosphere acts chaotically. As Edward Lorenz said in his presentation “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in
Texas?”, – “1. If the flap of a butterflys wings can be instrumental in generating a tornado, it can equally well be instrumental in preventing a tornado.”
SkyDragon cultists believe that can foresee the future – the outcome of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is bad! bad! bad! That just means that SkyDragon cultists are mad! mad! mad!
I’m with someone who appears to know what they are talking about, mathematician and meteorologist Edward N Lorenz.
Gee I wonder why chaos theory doesn’t get rid of the seasons. Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?
barry,
You wrote –
“Gee I wonder why chaos theory doesnt get rid of the seasons. Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?”
That’s about as silly as wondering why chaos theory doesnt get rid of the wind!
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and “sets” nothing!
I assumed you knew that. Correct me if I’m wrong.
barry…”Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?”
***
Please try to do some serious thinking, Barry. Climate is a mathematical average of weather, not the other way around. Climate is ‘defined’ based on weather and there is no magical force called climate that forces weather. Rather, weather is produced by differences in temperature in the atmosphere. Since CO2 produces insignificant heating in the atmosphere, it is a non-player.
I did not know that weather causes the seasons to change. I thought it was the tilt in the Earth’s access and its orbit.
You guys are full of some really excellent advice.
But seriously, chaotic behaviour exists within systems that have definable parameters.
Weather is chaotic, climate isn’t. Climate is the parameter within which the chaotic behaviour of weather occurs.
That’s why we can be sure many years in advance that Summer will be hotter than Winter, but we can’t say which day in Summer will be hotter than another.
You knew that, but you got all twisted up trying to land some punches.
And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off – Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with – as he talked about weather.
The ‘confusion’ Tim mentioned is simply that you guys use climate and weather interchangeably. And when called on it you hurry to affirm that climate is the average of weather, saying something obvious, and totally missing the point.
barry,
Like the average SkyDragon cultist, you are mightily confused – probably caused by your attempts to make stuff up as you go along.
You wrote –
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
No, barry, Tim S did not mention chaos. You just made that up. I pointed out that the atmosphere is chaotic. I didn’t mention the word weather. You made that up, too.
You rattled on –
“But seriously, chaotic behaviour exists within systems that have definable parameters.
Weather is chaotic, climate isnt. Climate is the parameter within which the chaotic behaviour of weather occurs.”
Maybe you could specify the definable parameters of the atmosphere? I’m betting you can’t. Are you really saying that a change to a chaotic input will result in a predictable change to its average? That sounds a bit nutty, but maybe you can provide an example. You babble that climate is a “parameter”. You are obviously off with the fairies.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations – a meaningless and useless collection of numbers. That should suit you, at least.
Carry on making stuff up.
Earth’s global climate is average temperature of the ocean.
Earth’s global air temperature is caused by the temperature of the surface of the ocean. And the surface of the ocean, particularly polar ocean surface temperature is directly related to the average temperature of the entire ocean.
We are in an Icehouse global climate because the average temperature of entire ocean is colder than 10 C.
If our ocean was 5 C, we wouldn’t have much polar sea ice in the winter in the polar regions. If was 4 C, we could have ice free summer in Arctic ocean {Antarctica does currently have ice free in summers with our cold ocean of about 3.5 C, but Antarctica would have less winter sea ice if average ocean temperature was more than 4 C.
The last interglacial period we had an ocean with an average ocean
of 4 C {or more} and sea levels 4 meters or more higher than present sea levels.
Earlier in Holocene, sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher, and had slightly warmer ocean than 3.5 C, but probably less than 4 C.
We have been cooling and getting drier for last 5000 years.
We are no where as warm as we were in last peak interglacial period, which was wetter {Sahara desert which nearly all grassland and many forests and rivers} which don’t exist now. But did exist during African Humid period, earlier in the Holocene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Barry, I am disappointed. I somehow thought you were capable of an intelligent discussion. My mistake. This is what I wrote:
“There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.”
You brought up chaos. I did not. If you are not aware of the different forcings that influence weather and climate, then you need some education.
I was thinking about ENSO and various ocean current cycles for starters. Then someone needs to explain how the earth cooled for several hundred years resulting in the Little Ice Age. The earth did cool. The only question is how much. Even Mann had to admit that and “revise” the hockey stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.”
Swenson brought up chaos in agreement with your post about climate having factors working on different time scales.
You said there were too many factors to make climate conclusive. Swenson happily agreed and spoke of Lorenz and chaos.
Swenson mentioned tornados in his post about chaos, and then was mystified why I thought he was talking about weather. Just as you are confused about who introduced the notion of chaos.
If you guys were capable of a meticulous inspection of facts rather than waffling against AGW, you might be able to keep track of who said what.
Barry, you can do better. I did not mention chaos, and still have not mentioned chaos except to point out that you have misquoted me. This is your quote:
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
Now, who exactly is confused?
You still have not addressed my comment that the only thing close to a conclusion about climate is that CO2 must have some effect, and any attempt to quantify that effect is not conclusive. You must be aware of the wide range of results in the climate models.
There are legitimate questions about the ability to accurately track temperature trends from measured data. Why do satellite datasets show less warming than surface observation? The bigger question is, if UAH is wrong, why is there no other effort other than RSS to show us how that data should be presented? I would think there would be a competition to prove UAH wrong. Where is that effort?
Tim S,
You wrote “Barry, you can do better.”
Ah, a supreme optimist. I envy your faith.
I expect better waffles from TF, Mike Flynn,
What about you – do you put Marmite on them?
Tim S,
“Why do satellite datasets show less warming than surface observation?”
Do you understand that the satellite datasets are measuring different thing than the surface observations.
baffled bobby,
You wrote –
“Do you understand that the satellite datasets are measuring different thing than the surface observations.”
Are “. . . measuring different thing . . . “?
What “thing” would that be?
Tim,
“I did not mention chaos”
Apparently I need to help you with some complicated English. The word “suggest” in this context means “imply.”
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
Does that help you?
Or were you bamboozled when I said, “Swenson brought up chaos in agreement with your post”?
Despite the needless huffing about who said what the point remains that climate is stable and quite predictable, while weather is not. A butterfly flapping its wings may or may not cause a tornado on the other side of the world, but it will never change Summer into Winter.
Swenson,
Yeah, I missed an s on the end of things.
But the satellite data set measures the O2 radiance from the whole atmosphere and converts that data to temperature. Ask Roy how that happens.
The surface data set measures the temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.
Or did you not know that?
Bobby,
“But the satellite data set measures the O2 radiance from the whole atmosphere and converts that data to temperature.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. If you think it does, you should be able to tell me the temperature of the “whole atmosphere”.
You also wrote –
“The surface data set measures the temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.”
I suppose you are going to be silly enough to tell me that the “temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.” means something, are you?
Maybe thermometers respond to IR radiation, do you think? If you put a thermometer in a box in the Sun, what do you think the thermometer is responding to? The air?
No wonder you are a member of the Association of Dingleberries! You certainly have some odd notions.
“Well, no, it doesnt. If you think it does, you should be able to tell me the temperature of the whole atmosphere.”
Do you think it measures something else?
And you can convert the temperatures from the chart at the top of this page to a temperature of the whole atmosphere, but you won’t get a very useful number.
Or like I said, ask Roy.
Well one can argue about whats measured being different from what the theory claims will warm. But there is no way to figure out what the ramifications of that are without a blue print of the GHE effect as imagined by so-called mainstream science funding.
What it really boils down to is treating the public like a mushroom farm, keeping all of us in the dark and feeding us shiit.
“keeping all of us in the dark ”
Nah. The internet has numerous sources of information on these topics. One can even get well informed in this forum.
Only the people who CHOOSE to be ignorant, remain in the dark.
What are you talking about specifically Nate. You never seem able to find any of this stuff other than the ”official” results that the virus came out of a wet market. Where are all the exchanges between Fauci and the scientists that thought it had all the earmarks of coming out of a lab? And to find that out took a Congressional Investigation.
I’m talking about people airing generic grievances about the science, complaining that no one has spoon-fed it to them to their satisfaction, while not bothering to get informed about it themselves, and then rejecting it.
It is a rejection based on lazy, intentional ignorance.
Nate science can be a private as it wants to be. But if its going to set public policy I believe in open and transparent public processes. Its my government Nate. You are effectively saying government should be able to do anything they want to do to you in the name of non-transparent science. Its identical to not having a reason. that’s open season on corruption and abuse.
Uh we are going to give a few billion dollar contracts to my billionaire buddy to save the world!
Having you in here harping that there is a reason doesn’t reveal that reason. I have no idea why you are so dense and don’t get that.
“You are effectively saying government should be able to do anything they want to do to you in the name of non-transparent science.”
No I’m not.
Well you aren’t saying that but if you don’t know. . . aren’t you suborning it with what you do say?
What I stated was what I meant.
The fact that no one has spoon-fed the theory of the GHE to you to your satisfaction (which never comes), is not a problem of transparency.
The papers are there. They are all public. You are free to read them, but unlikely to really understand them, which is your problem.
Until you have read and understood them, your complaints about transparency are not convincing.
Nate says:
”is not a problem of transparency.
The papers are there. They are all public. You are free to read them, but unlikely to really understand them, which is your problem.”
———————-
Thats false right on the face of it.
1) Many papers are behind paywalls and thus are not public.
2)there are many contrary papers thus to even obfuscate you need a cherry picked set of papers.
3) there are millions of papers and you don’t have the bibliography that supports your viewpoint.
4) there are number of key issues that you can’t even prove a paper directly supporting it exists.
5) you can’t just point at IPCC report bibliography because your viewpoint isn’t supported by all those papers. (the key ones you can’t prove to exist obviously aren’t in that bibliography at all)
Plenty of papers and online resources are available.
Plenty of people can access paywalled papers thru libraries. They are no more ‘hidden’ than newspaper articles that require a subscription.
Indeed contrarian papers are also out there, they are not hidden either.
There are endless flimsy excuses for you to remain ignorant.
If all else fails then it is the Revelle Factor.
well Nate if you do have access why not prove it?
I’m willing to help people find resources who are actually interested in learning.
Bill, when I find sources for you, you knee-jerk reject them.
So you are on your own.
Nate we have been through one full paper and 2 other accounts of experiments where it was found that IR blocking didn’t warm the warmer surface. You haven’t yet provided a paper of an experiment within the atmosphere where it was found that yes IR blocking warmed the warmer surface. So don’t lie!
Bill, as noted, when I found sources for you, such as Manabe and Wetherald 67, or Hansen 81, you knee-jerk reject them, without any science rationale for doing so.
We already know that you gravitate to contrarian papers like G&T, even though have been thoroughly debunked.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1
It is solely because they and you are contrarian, not because you understand their argument, and that it is better.
Manabe has already acknowledged that his paper didn’t establish the effect. He says he just applied it.
And you haven’t provided a link to Hansen 81 to my knowledge.
And Eli claimed that conduction was effectively zero despite it transferring more than twice the net energy from the surface to the atmosphere as does surface radiation according to Kiehl Trenberth so what does he know? Apparently nothing of importance! And that means he didn’t refute any of G&Ts calculations much less provide any of his own. He just handwaved it all away. that isn’t a scientific refutation no matter how much you want to stretch it into one.
Nevermind the link to Hansen.
Hansen’s proof is:
”The global temperature rose 0.2C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
And you call that proof of AGW? Why not just believe everything your daddy tells you? Oops! thats right you already do. LMAO!
“Manabe has already acknowledged that his paper didnt establish the effect.”
No he didnt. Stop making up shit.
Hansen’s paper did two things:
-He again explained the GHE theory, similarly to Manabe. You keep denying that anyone has explained it to your satisfaction.
-He quantitatively predicted the rise in T over then next 40+ years that did happen. He predicted the faster warming of the arctic and NH which did happen.
The gold standard in science is to make successful predictions such as this.
“And Eli claimed that conduction was effectively zero despite it transferring more than twice the net energy from the surface to the atmosphere as does surface radiation according to Kiehl Trenberth so what does he know? ”
It is effectively zero.
You are mixing up conduction with convection, again demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about!
Boy are you ignorant!
The surface cools primarily by conduction. Convection just moves the air that received the heat from the surface by conduction and radiation.
Sorry Bill, as usual, you are on the wrong track..
The issue is heat transfer between the surface and space, not between the surface and the first few millimeters of atmosphere.
That is all about heat transfer within the atmosphere, which is dominated by radiation and convection. Conduction is nil in the atmosphere.
No Nate its about surface temperature. Its you that wants to worry about hot spots and such. I will start worrying about that after you come forth with evidence your theory is correct.
“No Nate its about surface temperature.”
Veering off topic.
The topic was whether you and GT are correct about conduction being important in the atmosphere.
It isn’t. Yet another mole whacked.
your theory is greenhouse gases warm the surface then the surface warms the atmosphere the the atmosphere warms the surface and so on. so now you are trying to divert attention from your basic argument and deny it.
“your theory is greenhouse gases warm the surface then the surface warms the atmosphere the the atmosphere warms the surface and so on.”
So a heated body that is insulated heats the insulation, and then the body’s heat loss is reduced.
If you think its because the insulation is heating the body, that is up to you!
It aint my idea.
Well the government standards body laid out standards for insulation to meet to qualify for sale as insulation to the public.
CO2 has yet to qualify.
So you think the atmosphere is not a good insulator?
Is it a good conductor?
Prove it.
tim…anyone smart enough to pass their college exams would surely be aware that the Little Ice Age cooled the planet over 400+ years and that we are currently experiencing a re-warming from that mini ice age. Renowned scientist, Syun Akasofu, who pioneered studies in the solar wind, calculated that the planet should re-warm at about 0.5C/century.
Akasofu’s specialty is in geophysics so he should know a thing or two about what it would take to cool the Earth then re-warm it. We are about 30 years short of 200 years since 1850 when the LIA is claimed to have ended, but is that a precise science, claiming the exact ending time of an ice age? At 0.5C/century, we should be close to 1C since 1850 and that is about what we are seeing.
The question is, how much did the planet cool? If it is much beyond 1C, then the warming will continue till the equilibrium is reached.
“calculated that the planet should re-warm at about 0.5C/century.”
No. He noticed that the planet HAS warmed at about 0.5C/century; but there is no calculation suggesting that is the rate it SHOULD warm. That is a huge difference.
He *speculates* that solar activity is the cause of the LIA cooling and later warming, which is a plausible hypothesis: Fewer sunspots = cooler climate. However, we are continuing to warm and break records as sunspot numbers decline. That should make us wary of putting too much confidence in the hypothesis.
“At 0.5C/century, we should be close to 1C since 1850 and that is about what we are seeing.”
0.5C/century is 0.05C/decade. We are seeing about 3x that amount in Dr Roy’s data.
“The question is, how much did the planet cool? If it is much beyond 1C, then the warming will continue till the equilibrium is reached.”
You are assuming there is some unique ‘equilibrium’ that earth was at before the LIA and that earth will return to after the LIA. That is not how it works.
[Syun Akasofu’s paper is here for anyone who wants to read it : https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4%5D
Tim Folkerts says:
”He noticed that the planet HAS warmed at about 0.5C/century; but there is no calculation suggesting that is the rate it SHOULD warm. That is a huge difference. He *speculates* that solar activity is the cause of the LIA cooling and later warming, which is a plausible hypothesis:”
Agreed
Tim Folkerts says:
”Fewer sunspots = cooler climate. However, we are continuing to warm and break records as sunspot numbers decline. That should make us wary of putting too much confidence in the hypothesis.”
That should indeed but only after an appropriate length of time after sun spots have been low. Cycle24 is the first low cycle that started in December 2008. So 15 years isn’t nearly long enough. At least two decades is the science standard. we do need to understand something about the recent temperature spike. We know its not a spike in anthropogenic emissions.
We have decades of sunspot numbers to work with.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
I was careful to run the trends from peak to peak.
The record shows that if you start from the mid 20th century, or start from the beginning of the satellite temperature record, the trend in sunspots has been decidedly negative over 6 or 4 cycles.
“At least two decades is the science standard.”
So 40 or 60 years should be plenty.
“At least two decades is the science standard.”
Here is 40 and 60 years of sunspot numbers.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
The trend is decidedly down over those periods.
the trend may be down but you have to factor in the imbalance from that remains from it being so high compared to any other period in history. Imbalances would take thousands of years to resolve if nothing else changed. And certainly solar changes aren’t the only thing capable of climate change. You have ozone and clouds also and our remaining lack of understanding about all those, much less are ability to measure any of that stuff to within a couple of watts.
thats why Nate tells me to go hunt for the study that he claims exists that proves the greenhouse gas imbalance. Namely has no clue at all how they estimated it. Its like masks don’t work until its expedient for the government to recognize they do. Or the shutdown of conversations about a China lab leak that was claimed to be a conspiracy theory until we found evidence of Fauci quieting it among the experts for the expediency of his organization who was funding the lab. . .illegally per some.
And that can be a huge influence as claimed by the IPCC that might cause the entire Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets to melt leveraging devastating flooding and temperature increases over time arising from albedo lowering because the edges of these ice sheets living on a fine temperature line. . .so should we be concerned about imbalances arising from the LIA recovery?
Since warming is on a ~2.0c/century warming track instead of the IPCC ~3.0 warming track from CO2 forcing and 2/3rds of the warming is supposed to arise from just feedbacks does that mean that all the warming we have been experiencing is just feedbacks? Seems to be a valid question.
barry says:
We have decades of sunspot numbers to work with.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
—————————
Yes I am aware of that dataset. Its a dataset that was manufactured from the raw data that was available up until about 10 or 12 years ago that was taken down.
Which is more reliable is questionable as the entire remanufacturing process was done by Dr. Leif Svaalgard who was quite active at one point for years trying quash the idea that solar variation was the cause of global warming. I don’t question his credentials but he even tried to insert himself in the effort to quash the G&T paper after it came out.
One likes to see such efforts supervised by independent scientists that don’t have axes to grind.
I have been trying to locate the older original dataset from the actual observers of sunspots but I have been unable to locate it though I didn’t spend a lot of time looking for it. Do you happen to have a link?
“thats why Nate tells me to go hunt for the study that he claims exists that proves the greenhouse gas imbalance. ”
Only people who CHOOSE to remain ignorant of this readily available information, will remain in the dark, and feel empowered to deny it.
The old and new data are virtually identical from 1950 onwards, both showing a peak in sunspots mid century, and generally declining cycles to present. But we can check against a different metric measuring solar activity.
https://tinyurl.com/3khux3rt
PMOD is total solar irradiance, and it correlates very closely with SDIC sunspots. We only have data from 1979 to 2015 at woodfortrees, but that is plenty longer than 2 decades.
BTW, Leif didn’t do the work on his own. He did it with a team of researchers, and wasn’t even lead author on the paper that updated the methodology. You just make things up, Bill.
Did they use the same team of researchers that found weather station managers didn’t know what they were doing too?
Actually being overly snide with the last remark. I just have to question the validity of going in nearly 200 years later and questioning what observers were seeing 200 years ago.
In cases like that its fine to speculate what the errors might have been but both series should be available to the public side by side with access to the discussion and changes that were made. Then others can look at the evidence and perhaps gain confidence in the methods. I am somewhat familiar with the methods as I spent a good deal of time on a blog where Leif discussed his work on this and saw the results he came up with before they were published via documents on Leif’s website. Thats good stuff but even that is now gone.
I’ll have look and see if I can find the old data. In the meantime, here is the main paper that brought about the revision to the data.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1f65b27a970a7016e267a754e68456177f80b7db
I found an archive of previous sun spot indices.
https://tinyurl.com/yc35cmwe
(tinyurl because the web address contains the letters d and c adjacent, which this site forbids)
thank you very much barry. i spent some time looking for that.
You’re welcome, Bill.
barry, please stop trolling.
Just to remind of what was actually said:
Tim S:
The only conclusion about climate, that can be derived from the available scientific theory and data, is that no conclusion is possible. There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.
Swenson:
You are right, of course. The atmosphere acts chaotically.
So Tim, you did indeed imply climate is chaotic, which was why Swenson was happy to agree with you while naming it.
However, you are both wrong. The seasons’ statistics of weather observations demonstrate that climate is a relatively stable phenomenon. The flap of a butterfly’s wings cannot change Winter into Summer.
barry, please stop trolling.
The interesting question is whether this year’s step-up in temperature prior to El Nino warming, is permanent. Will it persist after the El Nino next summer?
An even more interesting problem is how hot it really was during the Medieval Warm Period before the Little Ice Ag reduced the global average enough to drive the Vikings out of southern Greenland. The increasing global average may not level out till southern Greenland is ice free.
Nothing to do with a trace gas.
I agree. 2024 will be interesting to observe. Could 2024 will be colder than 2004?
That’s the thing, Walter, we set records for cold weather here in the Vancouver, Canada area in a climate claimed to represent recodrs for warming. Of course, those records feature a tenth of a degree or so, sometimes a hundredth of a degree.
GR,
Yes, I find it puzzling when people here dismiss what you say as ‘just weather.’ The unusual event took place over the summer, which is weather. According to the WMO, they define climate as weather averaged over a period of 30 years.
GR,
Yes, I find it puzzling when people here dismiss what you say as ‘just weather.’ The unusual event took place over the summer, which is weather. According to the WMO, they define climate as weather averaged over a period of 30 years. Not sure exactly why it’s 30 years; I would say 500 years is much better, because of how chaotic our climate is!
walter…climates to me are fairly obvious and don’t need a 30 year definition. For example, here in Vancouver, Canada, we have a fairly obvious rain forest climate. We live in a forested are and it rains a lot in winter. I have noticed no significant changes in annual weather over the past 30 years. We have not suddenly developed the climate attributes of a sub-tropical climate.
Meantime, 150 miles north east, we have a clearly defined desert climate. The fauna consists of sage brush, small cactii, and their ilk. In other parts of our province there are inconsistent yet on-going droughts. What it seems to come down to are the mountain ranges we have that seem to run north-south. The mountains seem to force moist air from the Pacific to dump their loads before reaching the desert areas.
Even on the coast, it can be drier on the east side of mountains than on the side facing the ocean.
GR,
Same with my location. I calculated the rate of warming at a nearby station with data going back to October 1974. There was rapid warming starting from then and into the early 2000s, but the rate since then has been slowing. I saw the volcanic eruption signatures in the early 1980s and 1990s, which I think quickened the rate. Even this station has likely bias because when I check the rate of warming for the minimum temperature, it’s warmed much more rapidly. I even visited the station itself and saw that it was situated next to a sidewalk in the person’s backyard.
Makes me wonder how effective ‘homogenization’ is. There are lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their climate both this year and over the past 3 decades. Are they smearing data from biased locations throughout their assigned grid? As such, I think people reporting the conditions of their weather in their locations are good anecdotal evidence; obviously not better than properly sited weather stations but still useful.
“lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their”
That’s called anecdotal evidence. In science, that is considered to be the weakest kind.
Nate says:
”lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their climate”
Thats called anecdotal evidence. In science, that is considered to be the weakest kind.
———————-
Yes it is the weakest kind of science. But thats why science has absolutely no place in policy.
the only thing important in policy is the anecdotal. How does the policy effect you, how does it benefit you.
Science obviously just handwaves all that away and replaces it with their own biases, desires, and ambitions. Which explains why the scariest sound in the world is: ”I am from the government, and I am here to help you”
Anecdotal evidence:
“Yes it is the weakest kind of science. But thats why science has absolutely no place in policy.”
You fail at logic Bill!
How many times has this question been asked over the last few decades, with the same answer each time?
Nate
Other than Earth’s spin and orbit, I don’t know of anything permanent on this planet.
There is nothing permanent about either. The orbit varies all the time, just like the Moon’s orbit, where the orbital path actually rotates every 7 years or so. Of course, the Moon does not rotate about an axis, as does the Earth, but the Earth’s rotation is by no means permanent.
He may not understand what you’re saying. Remember Bindingdong doesn’t know that ice freezes below 28F?
There is no ‘may’ about it Bob, Binny understand very little when it comes to an intelligent level of conversation. He would not even understand the humour on Sesame Street, failing to understand what is funny about Muppets talking.
“Remember Bindingdong doesnt know that ice freezes below 28F?”
Oh boy, that’s news to me!
Perhaps you should review your statements before you post them.
“Oh boy, thats news to me!”
Isn’t everything?
blob,
You clearly do not know what I am referencing to.
Spongebob Ape,
Obviously seawater freezes at about 28 F, depending on the salinity of the seawater.
Ice is already frozen.
I can read English, that’s what you were referring to.
‘permanent’ in this context means a new normal.
Nate,
Presumably only”permanent’ until the next “new normal”?
And that will occur . . . .?
Another candidate for the Association of Dingleberries.
troubleshooting…
Of course, leave it to stoopidb to come back with the most illogical argument. The Black Knight claimed his wounds were merely a flesh wound, which produced good humour. It is just about as humourous to claim a 15 year flat trend has no significance based on a theory that ever-increasing anthropognic CO2 should produce a linear trend.
Yes, alarmists are a good laugh.
A scientific rebuttal of alarmist propaganda…
[bob d]..I was referring to photons from CO2 gas, not from a surface, and CO2 emits the same frequencies of photons no matter what the temperature of the gas. And its from individual molecules of CO2 anyway, which dont have temperature.
And also, photons have no way to measure the temperature of the surface they are about to interact with, only if the energy levels are available will they be absorbed”.
***
A contradiction of Bohr’s basic quantum theory. Any EM/IR emitted from a molecule must come from electrons in the atoms making up the molecule. Those electrons will emit at frequencies dependent on the temperature of the mass.
Once again, the photons do not require any knowledge of the surface temperature. They carry a signature temperature with them based on the frequency they carry. If electrons in the surface are not at a temperature where that frequency resonates with their angular frequency, they will not react to the EM/IR.
************
[tim f]…The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.
***
Bullfeathers. You have human-based averages on the brain. Photons know nothing about averages, nor does heat wrt the 2nd law. If elemental atoms in any mass have the same temperature they will produce exactly the same frequency of photons. That’s why sodium atoms in a sodium vapour lamp all produce a frequency we see as the colour yellow. It’s the same reason stars can be classified due to their temperature and colours which range from reddish to bluish white.
I will grant you one thing. If there are significant variations in temperature of an emitting source, then the photon will have different frequencies. However, the reason an atomic clock is so accurate is that the emissions from the Cesium atoms are so constant.
—-
Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it”.
***
Yes it does, Tim. Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them. Their angular frequency of rotation makes it essential that the incoming radiation frequency matches it.
You have heard of a glass shattering when a discrete sound frequency excites the glass to shatter frequency. Nature surprises us all the time with its idiosyncrasies.
Gordon,
You wrote-
“Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them.”
When excitation is involved, frequency is definitely a consideration.
However, consider 2 objects – one has a temperature of 1 K, one has a temperature of 2 K. The cooler object will warm, the warmer will cool. The radiation emitted by the warmer is insufficient to excite anything much – not me, that’s for certain! Only joking – most of what is on the internet, and even taught in American universities (if course content on the internet is any guide) is complete nonsense.
swenson…I get your point and it is something I have thought about over the years. The closer two bodies are in temperature, the less heating can take place via radiation absorp-tion from the hotter body.
If my body temperature is 37C and someone standing beside me has a temperature of 37.2C, I seriously doubt that I will getting hotter standing next to that person, unless it is a really hot babe who is dumb enough to stand close to me.
However, a body like the Sun, with a surface temperature of 5000C+, can radiate energy that will warm me 93 million miles away when my body almost instantly converts the radiation to heat. By the same token, I would consider it folly to presume radiation from my body could raise the temperature of the Sun. Many alarmists seem to think it can.
I think the effect of radiation is seriously over-estimated re its heating effect. If you turn on a radiant heater in a living room on a cold day, it’s not the radiation that warms you, it’s the air molecules heated by the element. The room gets warmed far more by convection than the radiation itself.
“If you turn on a radiant heater in a living room on a cold day, it’s not the radiation that warms you, it’s the air molecules heated by the element.”
No, not at all. Virtually none of the radiance given off by an element is absorbed by air molecules, the device works by heating surfaces directly, which is why if you step away from the focus of a radiant heater you will feel cold.
Eventually the air in a room heats up due to contact with the surfaces that have been heated by the radiant element.
This is why radiant heaters are used in small places, and particularly bathrooms, where the fan sucking the moist air out won’t interfere with the radiant heat reaching your skin.
A scientific rebuttal would indeed be a good idea.
Gordon,
“A contradiction of Bohrs basic quantum theory. Any EM/IR emitted from a molecule must come from electrons in the atoms making up the molecule. Those electrons will emit at frequencies dependent on the temperature of the mass.”
Bohr’s theory does not apply to polyatomic molecules like CO2.
Basically it applies to the Hydrogen atom and ions with only one electron.
bumbling bobby,
Off with the fairies again?
You wrote –
“Bohrs theory does not apply to polyatomic molecules like CO2.”
Ah well, you obviously don’t agree with –
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273C or -459F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”
Go on, tell me a mass of hydrogen is an object, but an identical mass of CO2 is not!
Tell, o wise and powerful bobdroege, scourge of the undersea realm, feared by all, did the Navy put you in charge of anything more complicated than a light switch?
Learn some physics, if you can.
Dear Swenson,
Physics and Thermodynamics comes in two flavors, micro and macro, don’t get them confused.
Here you go
“For an ideal absorber/emitter or black body, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time (also known as the radiant exitance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, T:”
Do you see any molecules or atoms in that statement?
Do you see the word black body in that statement?
Do you understand that individual atoms or molecules are not blackbodies?
As a graduate of a liberal arts college, do you want fries with your physics lesson>
Bumbling bobby,
“The form of the StefanBoltzmann law that includes emissivity is applicable to all matter, provided that matter is in a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so that its temperature is well-defined. This is a trivial conclusion, since the emissivity,
ε, is defined to be the quantity that makes this equation valid.” – Wikipedia.
I assumed that you knew that emissivity for non-black bodies varies.
Obviously, members of the Association of Dingleberries don’t accept that all matter includes, well, all matter.
Maybe you don’t understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.
Carry on displaying your intellectual level.
“The form of the StefanBoltzmann law that includes emissivity is applicable to all matter, provided that matter is in a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so that its temperature is well-defined. This is a trivial conclusion, since the emissivity,
ε, is defined to be the quantity that makes this equation valid. Wikipedia.”
Still no molecules or atoms in that statement.
“Maybe you dont understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.”
Don’t get your science from the College of Gordon.
Try Wikipedia instead, but always try the references provided at the bottom of any Wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration#:~:text=Photodisintegration%20(also%20called%20phototransmutation%2C%20or,by%20emitting%20a%20subatomic%20particle.
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Bobby Dingleberry,
“Still no molecules or atoms in that statement.”
Matter includes molecules and atoms. Well, maybe not to Dinglelberries.
With regard to photons, I assumed you knew I was excluding nuclear processes. My bad.
Carry on dreaming, bobby. I suppose you are trying to tell everyone that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has heated up since. Correct me if I’m wrong. What temperature do you believe the Earth’s surface was when all the surface rocks were molten, as all non-Dingleberries assert?
I’ll reiterate – atoms and molecules are regarded as matter by real,scientists.
Swenson,
“What temperature do you believe the Earths surface was when all the surface rocks were molten, as all non-Dingleberries assert?”
Was that when the Earth formed, or slightly later during the heavy bombardment period?
“I suppose you are trying to tell everyone that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has heated up since.”
No, I never said that. Your suppositions and five bucks will buy you a Starbucks.
As for my time in the Navy, this is what I was responsible for
“Responsible for leading a watch team in operations, maintenance as well as casualty control in Navy reactor plants.”
And that included light switches.
And what about this
“Maybe you dont understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.”
Well that won’t get you a cup of coffee.
Exactly.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/atoms-and-electrons/a/bohrs-model-of-hydrogen
https://www.space.com/bohr-model-atom-structure
Bohr’s model already failed with helium; moreover, his model is in contradiction to Heisenberg’s later discovered indeterminacy principle (1927).
And all climate models fail miserably at predicting future climate states. Stated by the IPCC, even.
Richard Feynman, in a lecture, used Heisenberg’s principle as the basis for demonstrating why this must be so, without invoking chaos theory at all.
Many ways to demonstrate that supposed climate models are completely useless.
“Richard Feynman, in a lecture, used Heisenbergs principle as the basis for demonstrating why this must be so,”
Nah. You just made that up.
Bumbling bobby,
“Since that is a random process, a precise answer is not possible.”
I apologise. I did not specify a time.
The time is 1 second. Off you go.
The Association of Dingleberries won’t accept me. I accept reality.
Nate,
Sorry. Fat finger syndrome.
Here’s my reply to your “Nah. You just made that up”.
I didnt make it up. What leads you to think I did? If you can produce some evidence to show I’m wrong, please do so.
The recorded lecture certainly sounds like Richard Feynman.
After you have listened to it, you may agree it was actually Feynman speaking.
You have no intention of actually checking for yourself, have you?
Typical.
Feynman was not stoopid, and thus would not claim the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a Quantum Mechanical principle, applies to Climate Models.
So yes, you just made it up. You are caught red handed.
But if you continue to claim its true, then provide quote, and a LINK to it.
If cannot, then we will know that you simply LIED.
Swenson,
Specifying a time of one second doesn’t help, still random, still unpredictable.
yes, Bob, we know Bohr’s elementary theory only applied to hydrogen and partly to helium. However, it laid the foundation for later theories like that of Schrodinger, that did cover molecules like CO2.
Schrodinger’s equations are also based on electrons orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius. It gets far more complex with more complex molecules but it is still based on the relationship between electrons and radiation a la Bohr.
Even Schrodinger’s equations were challenged by Linus Pauling who had to use his experience with molecules to make them work. In fact, he had to modify Schrodinger’s equations.
There is nothing magical with CO2. It is a molecule comprised of two oxygen atom and one carbon atom bound by 6 valence electrons contributed by each atom. Electrons are the only factor in CO2 that allows the molecule ro radiate and absorb energy. Mind you, applied heat will have a similar effect.
Gordon,
“Schrodingers equations are also based on electrons orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius.”
Nope, they are based on the probability of finding the electron at a certain location.
Electrons might orbit the Hydrogen atom, but I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation, but they definitely do not orbit the atoms of polyatomic molecules.
CO2 definitely absorbs and emits lower energy photons than the electronic energy level photons associated with the hydrogen atom.
“Its the same reason stars can be classified due to their temperature and colours which range from reddish to bluish white.”
Are you truly under the impression that a star emits a single frequency of light? That all the photons from a red star are some frequency near 450 THz?
The only thing I have implied is a relative temperature based on the colour emitted. Our Sun emits a white to yellowish light, which is near the peak of the EM spectrum. That means most of the electrons are emitting in that range which represents a temperature of about 5000C. Stars with a lower temperature will emit more toward the colour red.
“Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them.”
You DO realize that both warm and cool CO2 emit 15 um photons (2E14 Hz), right? So no matter how ‘fussy’ any particular electron/atom/molecule is, it will absorb a warm-source 15 um photon exactly as well as it will absorb a cool-source 15 um photon.
Tim,
Gordon mentioned “excites” by which I am guessing he is referring to the phenomenon of “excitation”. Nothing to do with photon emission due to temperature. Correct me if I am guessing wrong.
Feel free to read Gordon’s mind if you wish.
You might like to demonstrate your knowledge by indicating precisely how many 15 um photons are emitted by 1 kg of cool CO2 at 1 K. That should be cool enough.
Have you joined the Association of Dingleberries yet? You’d fit right in.
“You might like to demonstrate your knowledge by indicating precisely how many 15 um photons are emitted by 1 kg of cool CO2 at 1 K. That should be cool enough.”
Since that is a random process, a precise answer is not possible.
Maybe you should try to enroll in the college of dingleberries and see if you can pass the entrance exam.
tim…your 15 micron absorp-tion applies only in the range of atmospheric temperatures. There is quite a range of temperatures therefore there will be an absorp-tion bandwith around that 15 micron peak. However, a photon with a wavelength of 15 microns is produced at a very specific temperature.
“However, a photon with a wavelength of 15 microns is produced at a very specific temperature.”
No! Absolutely not. Cold CO2 in the atmosphere produces 15 um photons. Hot CO2 in a furnace produces 15 um photons. My body produces 15 um photons. The sun produced 15 um photons.
I’m curious now what ‘specific temperature’ you think is required to produce 15 um photons.
“Bullfeathers. ”
The sun emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A hotter start like Sirius emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A cooler star like Betelgeuse emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A 350 um UV photon might come from any of them.
A 650 um red photon might come from any of them.
A 1200 um IR photon might come from any of them.
The difference is the relative intensities of the photons at each frequency. (This is not due to different temperatures within the stars, either) The hotter the surface of a star, the higher the average frequency of the photons emitted.
Gordon,
You have enunciated something which pinpoints your fundamental misconception about radiative transfer.
“If elemental atoms in any mass have the same temperature they will produce exactly the same frequency of photons.”
In no mass or gas of uniform temperature will photons of the same frequency be emitted.
Elemental atoms at a uniform, equilibrium temperature emit photons of various frequencies due to the distribution of electronic transitions occurring within the atoms. The resulting spectrum of emitted radiation follows the principles of thermal radiation described by Planck’s law. We’ve posted these emission curves her many times.
Folkerts is quite right in saying: “The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.”
Any surface of uniform temperature will emit photons at broad range of frequencies, with the most intense band of emission corresponding to the temperature, as described by Planck.
And because emission = absorp.tion, a receiving surface will also absorb across a wide range of frequencies. Photons are absorbed if the frequency corresponds to any of a large number of orbital states in the receiving atoms, which is NOT determined by temperature.
You erroneously believe that objects at uniform temperature give off radiation at one, single frequency. This is the exact opposite of the truth.
Here is a diagram of the spectrum of radiation emitted at 5000, 4000, and 3000K, based on Plank’s Law.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Black_body.svg
And if you learned your physics, emission = absorp.tion. Therefore, the frequency spectrum of an object at 3000K greatly overlaps with the frequency spectrum of an object at 4000K. Each object can absorb the photons coming from the other.
Nothing in this breaks the 2nd Law.
barry, please stop trolling.
Weekly ENSO anomalies – week ending Dec 2.
1.2 … +2.1 (up 0.1)
..3 … +2.0 (down 0.3)
3.4 … +2.0 (down 0.1)
..4 … +1.7 (up 0.2)
A tropical cyclone is approaching northern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gi
https://i.ibb.co/pXyDRDJ/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Relevance?
And your first two links don’t work. Not that they will show anything meaningful.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/92P_gefs_latest.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=92P&product=ir
The letter ‘f’ is missing at the end of the link.
Not that it shows anything meaningful.
You will find out in a few days, provided you are in Queensland.
Nino 1.2
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
If this forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
is correct, then El Niño could fall below the 0.5 threshold by May at the latest.
Nino 3.4
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Palmowski still didn’t get the difference between ENSO numbers and SSTs, as it seems.
Surely you don’t have enough snow in Berlin.
You are exceptionally right, but only with regard to children:
https://i.postimg.cc/PxTKCWTR/Snow-south-of-Berlin-GM.png
About 1 mm today above the 5 cm from last week. Maybe a bit more tomorrow…
Still not enough for tobogganing.
Ren you are showing Nino 3.4 is up. You are only supposed to show it when it is down.
Ireneusz Palmowski says:
Nino 3.4
————————–
Thanks for that resource. I have been wondering when somebody would start looking at ENSO from a larger perspective. Living on the westcoast its clear that the extratropics contributes greatly to the ENSO pattern and from my reading does so in both the N and S hemispheres. I look forward to reading more on the topic out of this resource.
https://tinyurl.com/25y8jcda
The real Climate Change and Climate Crisis agenda has been brought into clear focus at COP28 with the agreement on “Loss and Damage Fund”. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
There is no “climate crisis”. The “crisis” is entirely based on cult beliefs. That ain’t science.
Earth varies between cooling and warming trends. The average surface temperature remains in a range of 288K +/- 2 K. We are in a warming trend which is probably about to end.
Enjoy the warmth while it lasts….
A front with heavy snowfall is approaching Bavaria. Round-the-clock frost in southern Germany.
Sea surface temperature measurements do not indicate such a strong increase in global temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/NSGn7Kw/coraltemp-v3-1-global-current.png
Meteorological Winter 2023 is continuing the trend of Summer and Autumn with an Anomaly of 1.3 C for Sunday December 3 (1979-2000 climatology). The anomaly for the same day one year ago was +0.5 C.
https://imgur.com/a/xZoBKFy
High pressure over Iceland guarantees frost and snow in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/cgSp1VV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-04-163637.png
Weather in Oymyakon, Russia
https://i.ibb.co/CPmcMyq/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-04-165618.png
Wow, -54C! That’s -65F.
Just think how cold they’d be without all this “global warming”….
This is just the beginning.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/oymyakon
Looks nice over there:
https://i.postimg.cc/SK0XP0H7/Forecast-Oymjakon-Wetter-Online.png
Werchoyansk looks pretty nice as well.
Planetary habitability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
…
“An absolute requirement for life is an energy source, and the notion of planetary habitability implies that many other geophysical, geochemical, and astrophysical criteria must be met before an astronomical body can support life. In its astrobiology roadmap, NASA has defined the principal habitability criteria as “extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism”. In August 2018, researchers reported that water worlds could support life.”
There are a lot water worlds in our solar system- Or a lot a lot water worlds are guessed to be in our solar system- and most have source of tidal energy. There all being pounded with space rocks- and you could call that a energy source. Venus is thought it could have life, and it has no “extended regions of liquid water” in sight, unless you count acid stronger the battery acid, some liquid water.
NASA is rather interested in whether Mars, had life. As it seems Mars did have “extended regions of liquid water”.
I think habitability is related to whether humans could live there.
And at present time, Low Earth orbit is not habitable, though people can visit Low Earth orbit.
A problem with orbit is lack of gravity {or artificial gravity , and life {and humans adapt to this microgravity over time} so humans can live in orbit for 6 months or even more than 1 year, but human body is adapting to microgravity which has various unwanted/harmful medical issues- and we don’t know how life would adapt to artificial gravity nor do know, how human body adapts to lower gravity worlds, such as the Moon or Mars.
So we can live at bottom of the ocean or in the skies of Earth, but wouldn’t say these place are habitable, yet. And I think what might be easier, is living on the ocean surface which cover 70% of the surface of Earth. And it also seems to me, that live anywhere beyond Earth’s land surfaces, we need to live on the ocean surface.
Elon Musk thinks we need to launch rockets from the Ocean surface to get to point of having settlements on Mars {it has to do the launch rate of rockets}. Others think we need to use equatorial Earth orbits, and do that by launching rocket at the equator {and 80% of equator is ocean].
Some have thought we could live in skies of Earth.
Hmm. Can you launch rocket from cities in the sky.
It seems the ocean has the advantage of oceanic cargo ships.
Anyhow, I would put freshwater lakes on the ocean and freshwater lakes on Mars.
Makes me wonder if you can put lakes in skies of Venus. I tend to think they would have hot lake water. Hmm, might just have to be small swimming pools.
“Makes me wonder if you can put lakes in skies of Venus.”
You’d have to stop them falling to the ground, I suppose.
Unless you could make the water? less dense than the surrounding atmosphere.
In other words, I don’t imagine you can.
Probably, but you could have steam rooms or stadiums.
And cooled pools.
November ENSO 3.4 : +2.02
Sep-Oct-Nov ONI : +1.8
So much for Bill Hunter’s claim from just 3 weeks ago that this EL Nino would “top out” at +1.5 or 1.6, making it “one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”. Aside from the 3 “very strong” El Ninos, only two other El Ninos are ahead of it.
Qwerty says:
”So much for Bill Hunters claim from just 3 weeks ago that this EL Nino would top out at +1.5 or 1.6, making it ”one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”. ”
Qwerty certifies his ignorance status and even resorted to a lie to try to win some contest he had only in his own mind.
He went found the quote and took it out of context. the actual quote in context.
”the prognosticating international panel has topping out as one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record. 1.5 to 1.6.”
that was one day before the dynamics raised theirs to 2.0 and the experts raised theirs to 1.7.
So its clear that Qwerty is a liar because we had a subsequent conversation about ”the prognosticating international panel”.
Qwerty: ” Who is this ”prognosticating international panel”.
Be specific.
Hunter: ”the IRI here: https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table”
Qwerty: ”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”?”
Hunter: ”the dynamical models are not the prognosticating international panel.
Qwerty: ”The Climate Prediction Center is a part of NOAAs NATIONAL Weather Service. It is NOT an ”international panel”.
Hunter: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1559155
right now nothing is settled per the dynamical models vs the experts. The prediction we were discussing was that NDJ would be the peak for the expert panel (they had 1.7 in the November chart) and that DJF would be the peak for the dynamic models at 2.0.
So we aren’t going to know the winner between these two until March 4, 2024 as to when the peak has come. Although we may get a good inkling of that before then based on weekly data.
My position is and has been for years that ENSO is not anymore predictable than climate or the weather in 3 weeks so I am not into the ENSO prediction game for two reasons. One it is a game for experts, and two I am not an expert. But I know enough to be aware of the fact that nobody has a good track record at this game. Just that some do better than others.
All I said was the experts tended to have more data and some understanding of model biases and that maybe 10 years when I last spent some time with working with results the dynamic models tended to run hot. . .but so do climate models. . .so its not surprising.
Would you please link me to your post where you announced the upward revision with as much enthusiasm as your original post. Because it seems that you and ren have a bias in selecting what information you present.
BTW, I have not been able to find any reference to a CPC “panel” which decides on their projections independently of their computer models. Please provide a link. It must state that a panel decides on this figure after consultation, not simply state that a panel exists (most likely for writing up their reports and making impact assessments). And it had better be an international panel, as you claimed, which means it consists of people who represent each country, not just people from other countries who are working in the US.
A,
You have obviously joined bumbling bobdroege’s Association of Dingleberries.
Carry on,
I already gave you the links you are asking for. Just search on some of the quotes above in the previous monthly comment section.
And it was made abundantly clear that Eben was using Nino 1+2 for his prediction as he provided the link to it.
Fact is there are about a dozen Nino indexes.
As far as how the expert panel actually does its work its briefly explained in the IRI/CPC page on it that they have access to more than model information and they consider model biases. The Dynamic and Statistical model thick lines are merely the mean value of all those models. The expert panel puts out the CPCCONSOL which isn’t a mean value but perhaps a model where the previous biases (from missing actual) are assigned to each model. Thats a guess based upon the wording of them considering the biases of the models. It could be more sophisticated than that based upon expert knowledge of how the models use individual indicators.
but be clear it should have been clear to you that these were not my predictions unless English is a language you are not very proficient in.
The experts are almost always focussed on predicting Nino 3.4. The projection plumes given at IRI and CPC and BOM are for that region. Because it covers a large portion of the central Pacific that is strongly affected by ENSO.
But you aren’t explaining why you are complaining about Eben using Nino 1+2.
If you had actually studied the ENSO phenomena, Modoki El Ninos are the most common. But the whole affair started from El Nino being a phenomena that greatly affected the fishing fleets off Ecuador and Peru way back when these boats didn’t venture far to sea.
Thus Nino 1 and then Nino 1+2. today we recognize a lot more El Ninos, ones that affect weather and climate worldwide.
But sometimes Nino1+2 is a better early indicator for El Nino 3.4 than just about anything else. Those happen to be the more traditional non-Modoki El Ninos. Nino 1+2 is not a good early indicator for Modoki El Ninos that form in central Pacific.
Well this happens to be a non-Modoki El Nino and if you actually have any experience with them you know the odds are your in favor watching this index for the future of the current El Nino.
Indeed the expert opinions represent what is going to happen in Nino 3.4. But you don’t know what they are looking at besides models (particularly statistical models that do consider SSTs throughout the area) for all the El Ninos in the record back to 1950. The expert opinion is right on top of the statistical model line.
Eben comes in and says El Nino is in decline. He posts a chart with the historical performance of Nino 1+2 and modeled prediction of 1+2 continued decline then said the others would soon follow.
So what do you not understand about that?
Eben twice said last month that this el Nino was past its peak and already in decline.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561822
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
Then a few days ago CPC published its latest observed ENSO value, which is the highest yet for this el Nino.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
BoM’s NINO3.4 value was also highest in the week Eben said it was already past its peak.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
Eventually Eben will be right, but not when he made those assertions.
barry says:
BoMs NINO3.4 value was also highest in the week Eben said it was already past its peak.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
Eventually Eben will be right, but not when he made those assertions.
———————
Eben didn’t say ENSO 3.4 was past its peak. He said ENSO had peaked and ENSO includes SSTs in all the Nino areas. Nino 1+2 will have the highest anomaly of all the ENSO areas, is past its peak, and its highly unlikely any other area will even approach within one degree the Nino 1+2 anomaly of ~3.5 set back a few months ago.
No one uses NINO1.2 as the measure of the current ENSO state. NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA. Other monitoring groups use NINO3.4 plus other non-SST factors (eg, Multivariate ENSO Index).
Eben predicted that the current el Nino has peaked and is in decline. He didn’t say just the NINO1.2 region. He was wrong, and you seem to need to resurrect his faulty claim.
barry says:
”No one uses NINO1.2 as the measure of the current ENSO state. NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA.”
That simply isn’t true Barry. Perhaps the public generally thinks thats true because Nino 3.4 is the official measure of an El Nino without it necessarily being a peak value of the SST sn the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean.
The definition by the National Weather Service is: The El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
For that 4 areas are defined and SSTs reported weekly. Thats ENSO. The 4 Nino areas are 4 parts of it and the NWS favors using Nino3.4 as the measure of an official El Nino, though other countries have different choices and Australia I believe includes Indonesia in the Western tropical pacific in their index and measures it by air pressures influencing air movements rather than SSTs.
So don’t try to claim that there is one way to describe the peak of an El Nino. . .you are just too well suited for being influenced by propaganda when you don’t dig deeper than ”official” pronouncements. the IPCC for example is a wholly transparent propaganda white washing operations that ostensibly uses the input of 1000’s of scientists, buts it in the laundry and picks out what they want to wear.
Bill, no one uses NINO1.2 as the key indicator of the current state of ENSO, as I said.
Yes, SSTs in that region are included in study of ENSO, the name gives a clue.
If Eben wants to declare that el Nino is past its peak and already in decline, he can use the same metrics to determine this that every other institute and interested party uses. He is free to announce that NINO1.2 is the metric that he will use from now on, he is free to do so, but he will find before long that that region occasionally has opposite signed anomalies to NINO3.4 during ENSO events, and he is going to be calling an el Nino when every other institute is calling a la Nina.
As you have weighed in in defense of this nonsense, it is on you to show that anyone else uses NINO1.2 as the key metric for determining the current status el Ninos and la Ninas. I look forward to a reference that this is standard for any monitoring group anywhere.
“So dont try to claim that there is one way to describe the peak of an El Nino”
Ahem, I believe I said: “NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA. Other monitoring groups use NINO3.4 plus other non-SST factors (eg, Multivariate ENSO Index).”
In the post above this one that you replied to.
Did you forget that as you were writing your reply? How old are you, Bill?
With this little oversight you gave yourself license to wax on my being in thrall to propaganda, with an excursion on the IPCC. When, in fact, it is you who are blinded by your own rhetoric into missing the second sentence of the short post you replied to.
That is, you reacted to the first sentence and missed the rest.
This is a typical indicator of your attention span. It’s hardly the first time you’ve said something in reply to a post that was already negated by what was in the post.
Back to the point, you don’t get to unilaterally decide on a new metric for determining the current state of ENSO, and especially when it’s not your own claims you are defending.
barry says:
”Bill, no one uses NINO1.2 as the key indicator of the current state of ENSO, as I said.”
I will save myself from the effort of reading the rest of your post.
Eben never said ”the key indicator of the current state of ENSO” is in decline.
He said ENSO has peaked he also provided a graph of that peaking that was clearly labeled Nino 1+2. He also said the rest will soon follow and provided graphs of those also declining in the near future.
Fact is all this stuff is derived from models that consider a variety of wide ranging climate phenomena. Nino 3.4 is not always the best indicator of downstream climate effects, its just that the NWS model and perhaps others puts more emphasis on that zone or the others. But every Nino is different and if you watch Nino progression over numerous Nino events as I have done for years you realize that ”key indicators” are mostly tradition, possibly based on statistics by some parties but not others as being the best indicator of climate effects. Australia adds in Indonesia which isn’t even a defined Nino zone likely because it affects their weather the most. US may have a similar bias. Japan another. My observation is that non-Modoki El Ninos start and end in Nino 1+2. I haven’t formally analyzed that but the last non-Modoki was 97-98 and thats what it did. Which nations Nino 1+2 affects more regarding climate or which have the most effect on climate really hasn’t been sorted out yet.
I would say you are just taking an obedience to authority to a level it hasn’t yet earned.
“I will save myself from the effort of reading the rest of your post”
That’s what you do every time, isn’t it Bill? Read the first sentence and sound off.
When you say el Nino is past its peak and point to NINO2.1, but NINO3.4 rises further after your comment, you are just plain wrong.
El Nino is not determined by NINO2.1. In fact, the NINO2.1 region can have negative SST anomalies during an el Nino event.
That’s why it is not used as a key indicator. It is a factor, but not a determinant in ENSO events.
It’s as simple as that. You may cease holding Eben’s hand.
If you got this far reading my post, congratulations.
thats why there is no point in reading the rest of your post. As I said we know where you are coming from. You bow to authority so much that you can’t even fathom considering anything different.
Stop pouting. You regularly blather stuff that isn’t true and when called to verify you blather a bit more and then get huffy instead of just verifying what you say. You’re trying to defend Eben’s prediction but it’s falling flat. Give it up.
NINO1.2 region is used to help characterise ENSO events, particularly el Ninos. It is not a useful index of the current state of ENSO events, particularly as it is sometimes at odds with the other indices.
For example, in the midst of the strong el Nino that lasted from 2015 to 2016, NINO2.1 had negative anomalies for a couple of months while the other indicators were all in el Nino territory.
Had Eben only said that NINO1.2 had peaked, I doubt there would have been any response. But he said el Nino had peaked, and he was wrong.
barry says:
”NINO1.2 region is used to help characterise ENSO events, particularly el Ninos. It is not a useful index of the current state of ENSO events, particularly as it is sometimes at odds with the other indices.”
——————–
so are you privy to what the models use to generate sst predictions? if so provide some links to support your claims or stop pontificating.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
”For example, in the midst of the strong el Nino that lasted from 2015 to 2016, NINO2.1 had negative anomalies for a couple of months while the other indicators were all in el Nino territory.”
——————–
sure 15/16 was modoki or a central pacific forming el nino. not the case for this one.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
Had Eben only said that NINO1.2 had peaked, I doubt there would have been any response. But he said el Nino had peaked, and he was wrong.
————————-
he did if you incorporated the charts he provided. you are just insisting that the enso oscillation only has significant climate effects if they are in nino3.4 which is false.
“you are just insisting that the enso oscillation only has significant climate effects if they are in nino3.4”
Nope, that’s false. I’m not saying anything at all about “significant climate effects.”
ALL I’m saying is that Eben predicted the current el Nino has peaked and is in decline, and he was wrong about that, based on the metrics used to establish the status (not character) of an ongoing el Nino.
ENSO indices do not use NINO1+2 to determine whether an event has started, finished or is in decline. Period. Your post-hoc rationalising otherwise is tortured and unnecessary.
I think what people do is pick the index that best represents their local weather. For global weather it seems to depend a lot on the initial intensity in the area it forms.
But none of that nor none of what you said matters either Eben posted his support, obviously some people read it others didn’t, and some are now trying to hold Eben to what they think they heard. I understand that as I have been victimized on that issue a number of times myself. Go back and look at his support. He clearly showed a chart that had 1+2 declining for months and he showed a chart of Nino3 Nino3.4 at probable peaks. How can you not know what he was saying?
Eben’s post:
———————-
Eben says:
November 23, 2023 at 12:48 PM
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
———————–
He isn’t even really making a prediction. He is telling you what happened and all you are doing is quibbling about who should be the most authoritative.
Bill, I’ve already twice linked to Eben’s post that you just did now, and I did it in this thread, too.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570501
So don’t bother telling me I haven’t paid attention.
“How can you not know what he was saying?”
I know exactly what he said, I saw the charts, which are from the CPC.
That’s why I posted the CPC results that followed his prediction, based on their own metric for el Nino. According to the institute that he referred to for his prediction, el Nino got stronger, not weaker.
This is reflected in CPCs monthly anomaly: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
And also their official ENSO observation chart, for the Sep/Oct/Nov trimester, the highest ENSO anomaly this year, updated after Eben’s comment.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Give it a rest, Bill.
Bill is foremost a contrarian. Being factual and accurate are low priorities. Often he’s a Contrarian Without a Cause.
Eben and his posts are hardly a worthy cause.
One thing he regularly does is post PROJECTIONS, which show eg Nino 3.4 going down as usual in the Spring, and misinterprets them as OBSERVATIONS.
Thus he declares ‘El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived’ or ‘its fully blown and already deminishing’.
Bill, I suggest you find a better cause.
Nate continues to build strawmen re: Eben.
Me being a rebel without a cause? Well I did grow up in the era when that was a fad. but it extended to professional training as well auditors are always perceived as contrarians by those who don’t know the answer to the questions they are asked.
Barry said:
”Thats why I posted the CPC results that followed his prediction, based on their own metric for el Nino. According to the institute that he referred to for his prediction, el Nino got stronger, not weaker.”
Well the CPC charts have both actuals to date and predictions.
Nino 1+2 actuals had clearly peaked.
Nino 3 actuals were looking like a likely peak
Nino 3.4 actuals showed continued increases but they were predicted to peak soon.
And with CPC those actuals are up to date the day before his post.
So do you always assume that someone who posts can’t read his own charts? Seems to me Eben’s post matched the actuals and predictions dead on center.
As I said your only quibble is saying ENSO had peaked and the others would soon follow which you seem to have read as him saying Nino 3.4 had peaked.
No, Bill, it is you who is rewriting what Eben said, and now you are rewriting history.
“And with CPC those actuals are up to date the day before his post.”
You are saying CPC published the November monthly value before the month was even finished.
You are saying CPC published their Sep/Oct/Nov average – their ENSO metric – before November was even finished.
Boy, your need to win this argument has led you to a pretty big gaffe.
Need reminding of the date of Eben’s post?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
So let’s keep this straight: Eben posted CPC NINO1.2, NINO3 and NINO3.4 values from CPC and said that el Nino was already past its peak.
Then CPC publish their actual ENOS values AFTER Eben’s post, showing a higher month, and a higher trimester than what was known when Eben posted.
Yes, Bill, if Eben had just said, “NINO1.2 is past its peak,” there would have been no issue.
But he said, “el Nino [is] fully blown and already deminishing,” on November 21, and “El Nino is already past the peak,” on November 23.
The updates for November were published in December. Obviously.
Here are the latest actuals with prediction spread.
https://tinyurl.com/57pwwvh6
The CFSv2 predictions have been predicting an immediate drop in NINO3.4 for some weeks, without success.
Other predictions have NINO3.4 SSTs rising over the next month or two.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#region=NINO34&tabs=Pacific-Ocean
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20231101/nino34_anom_20231101.png
I wouldn’t make a prediction either way, but Eben did, as he always does, that el Nino and temps would drop. Eben ONLY predicts that else Nino is over, or a la Nina is getting bigger – anything that goes along with a drop in global temperature.
Pointing out when he gets it wrong is just a way of spotlighting his extreme bias.
Here is a snapshot of the spread of ENSO forecasts from last August.
https://i.imgur.com/5PvSMGn.png
The dynamical models did very well, and the statistical models fell quite short. The mean of the dynamical models was pretty much spot on so far, but the mean of the statistical models is currently well below observations.
There is quite a spread among the model types, so some of the dynamical models did poorly, and one of the statistical models did ok.
I’m living in barry’s head now
Bill I get it. You feel the need to defend all your denialist pals.
Eben has been consistent in prematurely calling the demise of the El Nino and the solar maximum.
Who knows why. He’s a Coolista.
His recent post was saying the El Nino is past peak and he showed nino 1.2, 3 AND 3.4 data.
November 23, 2023 at 12:48 PM
People of course correct him on these posts from time to time.
The El Nino is not past its peak.
That’s a justifiable opinion.
But its really just not a big deal.
No Nate you are in the same state as Barry. Read my reply to him.
ENSO above all is a climate phenomena. The models have various ways of analyzing it that involves wind patterns, current patterns, and more.
The real purpose of all this is primarily to estimate worldwide climate impacts. Various agencies of various governments and modeling groups do their forecasts broadly across all those parameters. It just happens that NWS cherry picks the Nino 3.4 zone for their quantification of El Nino. But it varies from zone to zone, el nino by el nino. I have been thinking since late last winter this El Nino was looking like a Nino 1+2 event. To determine what the experts feel, the phone it in guy is going to just check Nino 3.4. If you want to figure out if it was Nino 1+2 event I would suggest looking at the downstream forecasts from NWS to see if your Nino 3.4 is actually the most dominant zone for worldwide climate effects for this El Nino and comparing the differences from this one to other El Ninos.
Since these are climate models all the info to do such an analysis is there to make a case that Eben should have used Nino 3.4 instead of Nino 1+2. But I doubt you are going to do that. I can’t even get you to look for a detailed explanation for the cause of the GHE or the moon’s rotation or anything else.
“It just happens that NWS cherry picks the Nino 3.4 zone for their quantification of El Nino. But it varies from zone to zone, el nino by el nino.”
It’s not cherry-picked, most monitoring groups use that region, and with good reason. Japan Meteorological Agency uses NINO3, Bom uses 3.4 and a few other non-SST indices, like the SOI, the MEI uses 5 different indices, including 3.4 SSTs. CPC uses NINO3.4 as the index, but examines other factors when studying ENSO.
“I have been thinking since late last winter this El Nino was looking like a Nino 1+2 event.”
I can remember one study group that characterised el Nino events in this way (3 since 1950, if I remember correctly). They referred to those events as Eastern Pacific el Ninos.
It might be worth pointing out that the NINO1.2 region shows the greatest SST variability of the regions, anomalies going above/below 3.0/-3.0 nearly as often as NINO3.4 goes above/below 2.0/-2.0.
Yep.
Here’s what NCAR says about the regions:
“Nio 1+2 (0-10S, 90W-80W): The Nio 1+2 region is the smallest and eastern-most of the Nio SST regions, and corresponds with the region of coastal South America where El Nio was first recognized by the local populations. This index tends to have the largest variance of the Nio SST indices.
Nio 3 (5N-5S, 150W-90W): This region was once the primary focus for monitoring and predicting El Nio, but researchers later learned that the key region for coupled ocean-atmosphere interactions for ENSO lies further west (Trenberth, 1997). Hence, the Nio 3.4 and ONI became favored for defining El Nio and La Nia events.
Nio 3.4 (5N-5S, 170W-120W): The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast. The Nio 3.4 index typically uses a 5-month running mean, and El Nio or La Nia events are defined when the Nio 3.4 SSTs exceed +/- 0.4C for a period of six months or more.
ONI (5N-5S, 170W-120W): The ONI uses the same region as the Nio 3.4 index. The ONI uses a 3-month running mean, and to be classified as a full-fledged El Nio or La Nia, the anomalies must exceed +0.5C or -0.5C for at least five consecutive months. This is the operational definition used by NOAA.”
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
Also, here is what Nino 1.2 and Nino 3.4 did during the 2015-2016 super El Nino.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino12a_2015:2016.png
You can see 1.2 peaked in July.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino3.4a_2015:2016.png
You can see 3.4 rose steadily throughout the year peaking in December.
What you fail to consider Nate is that every ENSO event is different. Modoki El Ninos are El Ninos that form in the central Pacific. Regular El Ninos (as NWS describes the ”original” El Nino) form in the Eastern Pacific.
All El Ninos affect all the Nino areas based on prevailing surface winds and a theorized ebb of waters from water pile ups in the Western Pacific caused by the prevailing winds. Thus wind strength and direction are seen as major causes of ENSO events. The slosh back theory may account for most El Ninos, but I believe the eastern Pacific originating El Ninos are a product of variation in deep water upwelling as offshore winds off the land is the major cause of upwelling in most of the earth’s upwelling zones.
Thus if your model doesn’t recognize these effects your model is not likely going to perform well. I agree most El Ninos are Modoki so Nino 3.4 or 3 both make sense as a single consistent measure of El Nino.
But I appreciate Ireneusz posting yet another model output.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
this one matches my perception of the current El Nino. So that led me to this. https://tinyurl.com/25y8jcda
Which claims: ”When atmospheric “observations” are assimilated only poleward of 20 in both hemispheres, most ENSO events in the “observation” are reproduced and the error of the Nino3.4 index is reduced by over 40 % compared to the ensemble control experiment that does not assimilate any observations.”
This is verifies that its likely my local weather observation conclusions as to being a precursor to ENSO is real.
Over the last several years I have been watching for similar patterns in the southern Hemisphere and I consistently see SST changes I subsequently looked at to see if the same types of effects could be seen the southern Hemisphere. And yes similar patterns exist off Chile.
so what it boils down to is: ENSO isn’t an effect that arises out of a tiny little patch of Pacific Ocean about 2.5% of the entire ocean but instead is more of a Pacific Ocean wide event that takes up 30% of the earth’s surface.
Since at least small areas of the Pacific Ocean have waters that haven’t seen the surface in well over 1,500 years, much of the Pacific Ocean is still warming from the LIA recovery. How much that effects SSTs is totally uncertain. thus the climate effects from ENSO are just fluctuations with measured climate effects seen to arise from multi-decadal patterns seen in the frequency of positive vs negative ENSO events.
I will reserve my opinion to later but now that all this has been transferred to under the direction of Kevin Trenberth its possible we will see a change in how fast and the direction this science advances.
“so what it boils down to is: ENSO isnt an effect that arises out of a tiny little patch of Pacific Ocean about 2.5% of the entire ocean but instead is more of a Pacific Ocean wide event that takes up 30% of the earths surface.”
Exactly thus 3.4 is preferred:
“The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast.”
Nate says:
”Exactly thus 3.4 is preferred:
The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast.”
—————
Excellent observation Nate.
equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast was during the first week of the month was:
August 2023: 2.07
September 2023: 2.07
October 2023: 1.9
November 2023: 1.93
Should be a new diagnostic coming out in a few days for December. Looks like Eben may be right.
Nah. What sort of stoopid math are you doing Bill?
I also tried to answer that question:
If the Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect is +33C, what the atmospheric greenhouse effect approximately is at different latitudes, like:
1). Kenya
2). Egypt
3). Greece
4). Czechia
5). Sweden
6). North Pole
Notice, the higher latitudes represent smaller areas on the Globe.
–
But I couldnt answer that question, because there is not such an answer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course there is one.
1. All 6 places you mentioned are completely useless.
2. The major agent for GHE is water vapor; thus you find the highest GHE effect where water vapor is most abundant, namely above the Tropical oceans.
“All 6 places you mentioned are completely useless.”
The inhabitants too? That’s a bit harsh.
“The major agent for GHE is water vapor; thus you find the highest GHE effect where water vapor is most abundant, namely above the Tropical oceans.”
Get rid of water and cool the world? That doesnt seem very clever. Almost as silly as reducing the amount of CO2 (that most essential plant food) in the atmosphere.
What’s your next cunning plan to stop the climate from changing?
It’s rare when Bindi actually attempts any science, but it’s always fun when he does.
As Swenson already pointed out, Bindi’s concept of the bogus GHE is even more inane than what his cult touts. Does Bindi believe the oceans are burning fossil fuels? He must.
Or does he believe water vapor rising off the oceans is unnatural?
Maybe he could explain what on earth he’s talking about. That would be even more fun!
Blather blather blather.
How boring.
Your blather is fun, Bindi.
Of course, it’s not as much fun as when you attempt science.
Actually, Bindidons belated recognition that H2O is supposedly a major “greenhouse gas” doesn’t really explain why deserts can be so much hotter than oceans.
On the one hand, H2O is supposed to make things hotter, but it doesn’t seem to work for the oceans. On the other hand, if less GHGs makes things colder, it doesn’t seem to apply in arid deserts – which can get very hot indeed.
Maybe deserts and oceans need to be added to Binny’s list of “completely useless” places?
“Actually, Bindidons belated recognition that H2O is supposedly a major ‘greenhouse gas’…”
This Swenson guy. Two lies and a contradiction in a single phrase.
Contradiction: if there is no GHE, then H2O isn’t a greenhouse gas, “supposedly” or otherwise, and so there is nothing for Bindidon to recognize, and yet is he is doing it – “belatedly!”
1. “belated recognition” is a lie. A cheap shot lie.
2. the contradiction is the other lie – either CO2 is a GHG or it isn’t. It can’t be both. But this guy wants to have his cake and eat it.
So much disingenuousness that mendacity folds in on itself.
Blundering barry,
SkyDragon cultists imply that “greenhouse gases” exist, but cannot actually state what the effect of these “greenhouse gases” is supposed to be. You certainly can’t, can you?
I note that you have defined a contradiction to be a lie, just like some SkyDragon cultists claim that the GHE is “Not cooling, slower cooling”. No increased temperatures – or is Global Warming defined as Global Cooling?
Maybe you could straighten this all out by describing this supposed GHE in some way that reflects reality? What is the GHE supposed to result in? Hotter thermometers? Colder thermometers?
All very mysterious – you can’t say, and neither can anybody else!
You might as well avoid accepting reality, and try playing silly semantic games. Only joking, you lose at those too!
Others will no doubt form their own opinions.
Water vapour is also a trace gas and is significant only in the Tropics near the ocean surface. Insignificant effect on warming.
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it should be stronger at places with higher solar irradiance, because the core issue in atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect is the surface LW emission atmospheric feedback.
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it sould be stronger at equatorial zone, because at equatorial zone the solar irradiance is much stronger.
We face a paradox here:
We should have assumed, in the case of Planet Earth without-atmosphere, at Earths equatorial zone the far below zero C the surface temperatures
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The upcoming week is forecasted to bring exceptionally cold temperatures to Eastern Europe.
https://imgur.com/a/GODXNFn
https://imgur.com/1sFNBA2
Here’s a brilliant video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8R-X0kccHo&list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR&index=3
Watched a good portion and it is very interesting. Tsonis et al found a positive correlation between the various ocean oscillations and global temperatures and the AMO of one of the main oscillations. If the thermohaline conveyor does affect the AMO as claimed, that would explain much of the warming.
Indeed, I found the 1995 “shifts” especially convincing.
Interesting speculative video on an alternative source of heat from the ocean to explain GW.
But fatally flawed.
The total measure ocean heat content has been rising at ~ 1 W/m^2 for several years, and recently has accelerated.
As he stated at the beginning, the global average geothermal heat flux is < 0.1 W/m^2. And he provides no evidence that it has recently increased by a factor of 10.
In fact the source of the added 1 W/m^2 has been traced to the top of the atmosphere, where the incoming absor.bed heat from the sun and outgoing heat transfer is measured by the CERES satellite, and the NET has been increasing, tracking closely the accelerated rise in ocean heat content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lkCCNblIMM
Sorry Nate, but all those “measurements” ain’t actual measurements. They’re estimates, guesses, assumptions, and modeling. That ain’t science.
It’s the same basic nonsense as the bogus “EEI”.
Clint’s theory, whatever that is, can’t explain the measurements, so he declares the measurements must be wrong!
Wrong again, Nate.
Roy has explained, in detail, the difficulty, complexity, and rigor required to arrive at valid data from measuring fluxes. It’s a new technology, and you can’t understand any of it. Your cult believes they can guess at “ASR” and “OLR”, subtract, and arrive at an “EEI” that has any value.
That ain’t science.
“they can guess at ASR and OLR, subtract, and arrive at an EEI that has any value.”
Nope. Measuring, not guessing.
Wrong again, Nate.
You can’t measure ASR.
What will you try next?
Come on Nate, what’s the OLR right now?
You Dingleberry. Blathering about things that you don’t understand, can’t define, and can’t be measured, anyway!
Go on, you gutless Warmist worm, wriggle away.
Nate says:
”Clints theory, whatever that is, cant explain the measurements, so he declares the measurements must be wrong!”
What measurements Nate. All your youtube video shows is a mathematical model as Clint points out.
What part of ‘the measurements are done by CERES satellites’ are you confused about?
Well, maybe if you could relate the “measurements’ to reality, he could understand what you are talking about.
You really aren’t silly enough to believe it is possible to simultaneously measure the total amount of energy emitted by the Earth, and that absorbed by the Earth?
That would require the same type of mind which believes that the illusionist really cut the woman in half, and really vanished the elephant!
There are plenty of you about.
Nate you are the one confused.
I asked for the study with error bars with the databases used to make the estimates of what you claim to be accurate enough to determine the earth’s imbalance. A very simple request. Is that clear enough for you to clear up your confusion about what I asked for?
“Nate you are the one confused.
“I asked for the study with error bars with the databases used to make the estimates”
Oh did you?
You can look up CERES publications yourself and tell us what issue you have found.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/publications/
In my experience when I do your homework for you, you reject it anyway.
So not interested in that job.
“You really arent silly enough to believe it is possible to simultaneously measure the total amount of energy emitted by the Earth, and that absorbed by the Earth?”
Your personal incredulity is not an argument, and is rather worthless.
Nate continues to shill for the special interest institutions draining tax payer pockets without coming up with anything in support of his claims. How embarrassing does that look?
Nate you confuse heat with incoming solar and heat with outgoing longwave, and heat with reflected solar.
Obviously you know nothing about physics if you don’t know how wrong that is.
Nah, that’s stoopid. You are just on another grievance parade after yet another argument loss.
So Nate actually thinks radiation is heat. ROTFLMAO!
Nate,
You call people stupid because you possess a great amount of it.
You never justify your reasons, which explains why you try to heap your stupidity on others.
Maybe, if you ever developed a backbone, you could say what it is you believe in. So far, SkyDragon cultists say nothing of substance, so that that they can whine furiously “I didn’t say that!”.
Random laughing and falling down again?
“You call people stupid”
False.
“You never justify your reasons”
Justify why most of your opponents are called Dingleberries.
Well Nate seems to still believe that the moon can rotate and not rotate on the same axis at the same time with two different motions.
What else can I say?
Nah, Bill continues to shamelessly attribute fake arguments to me that I have never made, because sadly he cannot refute my actual arguments!
come on Nate you have been saying the moon translates and rotates at the same time in two separate motions. ROTFLMAO! Are just now realizing the implications of that or have you been simply obfuscating all along?
“you have been saying the moon translates and rotates at the same time in two separate motions.”
Yep. As thoroughly explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570443
And compare to what you JUST CLAIMED my argument was:
“Nate seems to still believe that the moon can rotate and not rotate on the same axis at the same time with two different motions.”
If you think these are remotely saying the same thing, you have brain damage.
Nate continues to believe that a line between 2 particles in the moon can have two motions in which that line both changes orientation and does not change orientation simultaneously.
Quote me saying stuff you want to refute. Otherwise kindly f*k off.
You did say the moon simultaneously translates and rotates at the same time Nate. You even denied that the translation would instantaneously stop for a rotation to occur to catch up and vice versa.
You wholly painted yourself into that corner and now you are just pissed, at who?
No quote no credit. F*k off.
Nate can’t even say what he believes here. Just goes ad hominem. The sure sign of the loser he is.
You made your bed, Bill, by repeatedly making up BS beliefs for me that I never stated nor held.
Obviously you are unable to rebut my actual arguments.
Hence, you want to rebut my arguments, from now on you will need to directly quote them.
You mean your argument that the moon both translates and rotates at the same time?
Nate,
You wrote –
“The total measure ocean heat content has been rising at ~ 1 W/m^2 for several years, and recently has accelerated.”
Listen, Dingleberry, heat content is not measured in W/m2! Nobody has measured total ocean heat content, and I doubt anybody ever will.
You cannot even say what units are used, or how many there are, currently.
If you want to believe the conjurors at NASA, NOAA, RSS, they are “measuring” various things – which is true to a point. However, their instruments may not lie, but their operators may, and how would you know you are being gulled into believing fantasy?
For example “surface” temperature. It’s not the surface at all. In fact most of the Earths surface is covered by a considerable layer of water. You willingly believe then, that “air” temperature is being measured. Well, no, it’s not. Look at the documentation of the WMO, for example, and you will find that the measured temperature of the air is not what is being presented as “surface temperature”, or even “air temperature”.
The signature of a good illusionist is that you can’t figure out how he makes the impossible happen.
The signature of a good con artist is that you dont even know you are watching an illusionist at work.
You’ve been had, Nate.
“they are measuring various things which is true to a point.”
Yep, that’s about it.
Unless you can point out the specific flaws in their work, which you clearly cannot, your complaints are just a bunch of hot air!
Nate,
I wrote “which is true to a point.”
People measure the temperature of a thermometer, and claim it is the temperature of something else.
Not a specific flaw? What is “their work”? Pretending to measure the temperature of something they are not? Generally, that would be called fraud, misrepresentation, lying, or something similar.
I’m not complaining – you are just putting words in my mouth. I’m pointing out reality. You dont have to accept reality. Go on, be a Dingleberry, and claim that “surface temperature” is the temperature of the surface!
That’s about a daft as claiming that the “greenhouse effect” has anything to do with greenhouses, or has any effect at all!
Others will no doubt form their own opinions, and may even value yours!
Keep at it – nothing wrong with a bit of unintended humour.
So you could not point out any specific flaws in their work.
Thus your generic complaints were just a bunch of hot air!
No surprise.
“…specific flaws in their work…”
Nate, start with the fact that fluxes don’t simply add or average.
That simple fact destroys your cult’s EEI nonsense.
“Nate, start with the fact that fluxes dont simply add or average.
That simple fact destroys your cults EEI nonsense.”
Nah, we have been over this dozens of times, and you never make any sense.
Again, can you do simple arithmetic or not?
Measure all energy inputs to, and outputs from the Earth.
Total energy input -total energy output = NET energy gain.
Now divide NET energy gain by the area of the Earth.
Can you do that simple math?
Then you have the Net energy flux to the Earth.
Its just not difficult.
Still wrong, Nate.
There’s no way to know energy-in and energy-out. It’s all guesses, estimates, and assumptions.
And again, energy is NOT flux and flux is NOT energy. Your cult doesn’t understand units. It’s like saying the distance between two towns is 40 mph. It makes no sense, to adults.
“Theres no way to know energy-in and energy-out.”
You think we can’t measure SW and LW radiation via satellite?
We certainly can.
“Your cult doesnt understand units. Its like saying the distance between two towns is 40 mph. It makes no sense, to adults.”
Nah. Science understands units just fine, it is you who is confused.
Nate can’t learn. He is willing to believe the distance between two towns is 40 mph!
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Listen, Dingleberry, heat content is not measured in W/m2! Nobody has measured total ocean heat content, and I doubt anybody ever will.”
Obviously Swenson is clueless about energy units and rate-of-change of them.
And as usual he expresses his incredulity at what science can do, and erroneously thinks that is an argument.
It aint!
I’m glad you found it interesting Nate. I don’t know very much about the energy imbalance and the greenhouse effect, but I would like to learn. I’ll have to do some research, but I don’t know where to start.
But let me ask you some questions:
-Are you not convinced by the 1995 shifts he mentioned? It seems to add up.
-Is there anything that could convince you that modern climate change is NOT dominated by CO2?
“I don’t know very much about the energy imbalance and the greenhouse effect, but I would like to learn.”
Maybe this will help, Walter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1568069
“-Is there anything that could convince you that modern climate change is NOT dominated by CO2?”
Not unless all the evidence, some mentioned here, can be explained away.
“-Are you not convinced by the 1995 shifts he mentioned? It seems to add up.”
As he notes, correlation is not causation.
And 0.1 W/m^2 of global geothermal heat flux needs to have increased sharply by 10 times.
Any evidence that it did?
Nate,
Dont you believe that dismissing the idea that our substantial CO2 emissions may not significantly contribute to global warming closes off opportunities to explore new aspects of our beautiful planet, Earth? Do you ever contemplate the intricacies influencing the weather in your region and its historical shifts? I hold a deep fondness for the Western United States and often find myself questioning the accuracy of claims surrounding the megadrought. This event, once emblematic of extreme weather linked to climate change, has disappeared, attributed to the exceptionally cold and wet winter of the past year. My curiosity extends to unraveling these weather patterns over a much broader timescale. Unless we presume to have a flawless understanding of climate, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to continue researching and discovering more about it? This involves not sidelining studies that question established premises and urging significant bodies, such as the IPCC, to engage in a constructive dialogue with skeptical researchers.
“Dont you believe that dismissing the idea that our substantial CO2 emissions may not significantly contribute to global warming closes off opportunities to explore new aspects of our beautiful planet, Earth?”
Setting aside the double negative, accepting the notion that CO2 has a noticeable effect on long-term global climate doesn’t interfere one bit with exploring all sorts of interesting things.
That’s obviously wrong, given the light of significant range of ECS values in the climate models.
That reply has nothing to do with what I said about what you said.
The range of ECS would imply a substantial gap in our knowledge of the climate system. It could be anywhere from 1.5C to 4C. A temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius might go unnoticed by most, while a 4-degree Celsius rise could likely be palpable and felt by people. It likely is even lower than that, given the fact that stable systems are usually dominated by negative feedbacks.
The origins of climatic events like the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dark Ages Cold Period, and Roman Warm Period remain unclear. Some argue these were regional rather than global, a point echoed in discussions about modern warming. Despite debates on global scale, contemplating Greenland’s historical arability still prompts curiosity about the intricate factors contributing to regional climate phenomena. No sufficient answer has been given to explain that.
“Unless we presume to have a flawless understanding of climate, wouldnt it be worthwhile to continue researching and discovering more about it?”
Yes. And that is precisely what is going on right now in Climatology.
“find myself questioning the accuracy of claims surrounding the megadrought. This event, once emblematic of extreme weather linked to climate change, has disappeared, attributed to the exceptionally cold and wet winter of the past year.”
Regarding the so-called megadrought, it is my understanding that the West has always had drier and wetter periods.
The issue is whether climate change exacerbates the drought periods, because warmer T produces more drying, and thus more severe wildfires. And there seems to be evidence of that.
Another issue is whether climate change will alter the global circulation pattern, such that the West dries further and the desert regions of the southwest expand significantly. The jury is still out on that one.
The issue is whether climate change exacerbates the drought periods, because warmer T produces more drying, and thus more severe wildfires. And there seems to be evidence of that.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/wet-dry/0
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, Walter. I thought it was that focussing on AGW disables research on other things. But plenty of research is done on ‘other things’ and papers ‘skeptical’ of AGW still pop up in the peer-reviewed literature. I don’t see a problem.
barry, please stop trolling.
Walter,
This is an drought index that accounts for rainfall and warmth.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
…please stop trolling.
Strong tropical cyclone attacks eastern India. There will be heavy losses.
https://i.ibb.co/jwQPQb2/meteosat9-ir-08-B-202312041821.gif
Tropical cyclone threatens the Great Barrier Reef.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We’ve had 108 days in a row where every single day has been the hottest of that day of the year on record.
Well done everyone!
Yes, I think we can rule out a Little Ice Age in our lifetimes.
walter…according to Zharkova, we may be heading into a similar situation soon. I hope not.
Gordon Robertson,
If I recall correctly, Zharkova’s prediction will is due soon? I am very excited to see what happens following the spike.
Walter,
Best stay away from Greenland -.
From Nature –
“Greenland ice core records suggest that the onset of the YD occurred rapidly in possibly as little as 3 years and that the termination occurred over ∼60 years.”
Prestigious journal, peer reviewed and all. Luckily, the word “suggest” allows the authors the luxury of being right, even if they’re not.
What the heck, it’s only weather, after all. A 3 year cold snap.
Walter,
Best stay away from Greenland -.
From “nature communications” –
“Greenland ice core records suggest that the onset of the YD occurred rapidly in possibly as little as 3 years and that the termination occurred over ∼60 years.”
Prestigious journal, peer reviewed and all. Luckily, the word “suggest” allows the authors the luxury of being right, even if they’re not.
What the heck, it’s only weather, after all. A cold snap.
Swenson,
I stand corrected. You are aware that solar cycle 25 is currently more active than the previous correct?
Walter,
No offence intended. I hope you took none.
The point I was trying to make is that the future is unknown, and sometimes doesn’t go the way you assume or want.
None taken. But yea… whatever this spike is could easily be followed by a large drop. Its hard to see and easy to doubt after decades of warming, but natural variability has a very large and probably dominating role as evidenced by the past half year.
None taken. But yes, one should not underestimate natural variability’s likely dominant role; this year is case in point.
Walter,
Never trust Mike Flynn about citations:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9061
Wandering Wee Willy,
Are you disagreeing with the nature communications quote?
Or are you just being silly?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
What “record” is that?
What’s your point? Have you applied for membership of the Association of Dingleberries?
You are doing very well, if so. You provided a completely meaningless comment – are you lying, or just being obscure for no particular reason?
Yes, thermometers respond to heat. Put one close to a fire, if you don’t believe me.
Are the other Dingleberries as clever as you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
What?
Yes, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 543.1 km/sec
density: 13.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Dec 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 107
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: -5.0% Low
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/04dec23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
Big coronal hole at Sun’s equator
Solar wind
speed: 616.5 km/sec
density: 1.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
A small spot {northern} coming from farside and spots leaving nearside. It seems spots near and coming from farside are weak, and could fade, giving a chance of spotless day in next 2 weeks.
And have wondering when Thermosphere become neutral rather than warm
or at or less the 18.00×10^10 W. Most 24 Max was neutral, with the second peak getting up to Warm, though peaking as high as 25 has done.
I am guessing Dec will be around 100 spot number.
The pros:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
04 December – 30 December 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a chance for M-class flare
activity (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period. “
Solar wind
speed: 570.8 km/sec
density: 1.22 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
The little spot coming from farside, grew a fair amount, and another small spot coming from farside. And 3501 is leaving nearside, but many days before any others leave.
Solar wind
speed: 491.8 km/sec
density: 1.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 125
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 130 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.85×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
Nothing coming from farside or leaving to farside.
The two spots which came from farside are growing,
they could grow more or fade in next week.
Sun seems to have low activity, and could get lower.
Solar wind
speed: 309.3 km/sec
density: 4.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 87
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
barry…”The change in NOAAs global temp record 1998-2012 went from 0.039 C/decade to 0.086 C/decade when they adopted the new SST dataset”.
***
As I have pointed out all along, NOAA are cheaters. UAH and the IPCC saw no trend from 1998 – 2012 yet NOAA manufactured a trend. Barry has just revealed the chicanery at NOAA. According to the error margin produced by the IPCC, the trend could have been slightly negative.
How does one explain a 15 year period with no warming when the anthropogenic theory needs a constant linear trend to explain the relationship between a claimed ever-increasing concentration of CO2 and warming?
Yes, there was a time when most of the publicly available datasets displayed the pause.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/
Neither Had.CRU4, HadSST, GISS or N.C.D.C seem to have a pause. All the running means are higher in 2014 than 1998.
No trends are given for each of these graphs, so the reader is left to wonder/pin their own biases on them.
Same old one-eyed bull from you Gordon.
UAH didn’t have a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, until they changed their data. Check it out.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend
UAH5.6 +0.05 C/decade becomes UAH6.0 -0.08 C/decade
That’s a change in trend 0.13 C/decade compared to NOAA’s change of 0.05 C/decade.
No problem for Gordon. The huge change is good science!
But the small change – that’s dodgy!
“Barry has just revealed the chicanery at NOAA”
By detailing what the change was? Then I’ve also revealed UAH chicanery with exactly the same method, right?
“According to the error margin produced by the IPCC, the trend could have been slightly negative”
NOAA’s trend for that period also has an error margin that means it could be slightly negative (0.086 +/- 0.146). So what the hell is problem?
The problem is that you know so very little about the actual facts and keep venting these falsehoods over and over again.
Bumbling barry,
Are you trying to say something?
Flynnson
Unlike you, the arrogant, contrarian ignoramus who is all the time in each post trying to say something, but actually never says anything relevant: barry posts valuable, interesting comments.
You should see a psychiatrist soon.
Binny,
You are entitled to your opinion. I support unfettered free speech, unlike you. Maybe somebody values your opinion. Another SkyDragon cultist, perhaps? Or someone of low mentality, gullible, or extremely suggestible.
Which psychiatrist should I see, and what leads you believe they will benefit from seeing me? Who pays me – you, or the psychiatrist?
Contact me when you figure it out.
barry
… is 100% right, we see it even better when superposing UAH 6.0 and UAH 5.6 in the same graph:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset:-0.14/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
*
After 2005, 5.6 keeps above 6.0 till its end in 2017.
{ The 6.0 curve has to be displaced by 0.14 C: this is due to the average anomaly difference between 5.6’s reference period (1981-2010) and that of 6.0 (1991-2020). }
*
But equally relevant, in my opinion, is the fact that McKittrick’s guest post at WUWT ‘coincidentally’ appeared some time after Roy Spencer’s announcement of a UAH move from rev. 5.6 to rev 6.0:
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
April 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
As a recall: at transition time, UAH 5.6 LT gave a trend of 0.14 C.
*
I doubt that McKittrick would have published his WUWT guest post in June 2015 without being backed by the new UAH revision!
**
The chicanery is as usual on Robertson’s side:
– he simply knows nothing valuable, hence fills the blog with his gut feeling a la ball-on-a-string, together with thoughts of the authorities he often enough wrongly appeals to, beginning with Bohr and Wood;
– he apparently suffers of a pathological hatred to all climate institutions – except UAH of course but only because they operate a transition to far lower temperature measurements in the lower troposphere.
Instead of
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset:-0.14/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
read
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.14/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
and
” … but only because they operated… “
Do you know the reason for the UAH6 adjustment?
Walter R. Hogle
You only need to carefully read abstract and intro in Roy Spencer’s head post whose access link I mentioned in my comment above
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Im asking if you know.
Do you mean LT or the whole, i.e. LT / MT / TP LS ?
LT
But another question: why would you say I doubt that McKittrick would have published his WUWT guest post in June 2015 without being backed by the new UAH revision! The WUWT article showed almost all datasets displaying the pause at the time. The UAH v6 adjustment also brought it closer to the RSS trend at the time, but they too adjusted their data later on.
Above all, what I know about the processing of atmospheric data can be found in Spencer/Christy’s, Mears/Wentz’s, Po-Chedley’s and Santer’s papers: anybody can google for such stuff.
Of special interest because covering both a comparison of various satellite series to the IGRA2 radiosonde dataset and a discussion about satellite sounding issues:
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research
Christy & al. 2018
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
{ It’s sometimes a bit difficult for the layman to live with the apparent circular reasoning, from Christy/Norris’ alignment of radiosonde data to that of satellites’ in 2006, over Haimberger’s later use of C/N’s work for the satellite-based RICH/RAOBCORE reanalysis of radiosonde data, finally used in recent satellite comparisons to… radiosondes. }
*
Zooming into UAH’s LT, one can see a big difference between
– the former, 100% microwave sounding-based technique used in their preceding revisions
and
– the current one which is a synthetic evaluation of the layers above LT, according to the formula visible in the document cited above:
” The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS ”
*
Until last year, I thought this linear computation would be kinda guideline for a LT cleanup. This was wrong: the four zonal/regional anomaly files published each month by Roy Spencer show that regardless which zone/region you look at in these four, the data found in
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
is – apart from tiny discrepancies due to the low resolution of UAH data (only 2 digits atdp) – exactly identical to the combination of the data found in the corresponding files for the three layers above LT, according to the formula above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
*
Even when using UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data (e.g. the NINO3+4 region, or the single grid cell above the university at Huntsville), you see the exact match.
*
Until now, I couldn’t find any Christy/Spencer paper explaining exactly how the somewhat ‘ad hoc’ looking coefficients were determined.
You just need to change the coefficients according to the formula used by NOAA STAR V5 to obtain changes in the entire UAH LT time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11SFfVcuOjFPa8ak_Qgk-AvqpWULoMLPm/view
*
That’s what I know.
barry is obviously impressing the other members of the Association of Dingleberries.
He wrote –
“Despite the needless huffing about who said what the point remains that climate is stable and quite predictable, while weather is not.”
Unfortunately, he forgets about a body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated unequivocally that it not possible to predict future climate states.
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 system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
After admitting the impossibility of predicting future climate states, the IPCC implicitly claims it can predict future climate states!
Fair enough, who would pay a fortune teller who said he couldn’t see into the future? People who run governments, obviously!
I am shocked to learn that it is impossible to predict that Summer will be warmer than Winter.
What arcane wisdom will the skeptics come up with next?
barry,
You are making an assumption. I suppose you also “predict” the sun will rise tomorrow?
Maybe you could “predict” something better than a 12 year old?
Members of the Association of Dingleberries find reality shocking.
12 year olds generally don’t.
Is only 4 Dec and already there is no signal in the noise.
I wonder if Charles Martel blathered on about the weather whilst the Islamists were approaching the gates of Paris.
” I wonder if Charles Martel blathered on about the weather whilst the Islamists were approaching the gates of Paris. ”
The people who crossed the Mediterranean and invaded Spain before also attacking France were not ‘Islamists’ but Moors whose religion was Islam.
A world separates both.
COP28 President –
“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is whats going to achieve 1.5C.”
Maybe Greta Thunberg should have been elected as president?
Faaantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHk2S6XlzsU&ab_channel=FriendsofScience
Winter Berlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDMWm0G3Io
And that you call ‘winter’ ???
We had 50 km south of Berlin nearly no snow, one night with -10 C, three with -7 C. And in Berlin, it was way warmer – UHI!
You are really a cooling alarmist.
Warmistas are bad people, but Coolistas are even worse.
A strong higs blocking in the north ensures frost and snow in central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/HKMb5wB/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-05-150515.png
ren,
Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area is. Ill frequently see him speak of 2010, but 2010 was a winter dominated by an exceptionally low anomaly in the Arctic Oscillation index. Temperatures in Berlin during the meteorological winter range from (39F)to (28F) barring extreme cold snaps, according to a quick google search online.
Cooling of, say, 1.5C globally would have much greater consequences than 1.5 warming.
Some (trustworthy) source confirming what I until now can only view as your personal gut feeling?
My ‘gut feel’ results from reading about little ice age, particularly famine 1315 1317, and the reduction of Europe’s population by half in subsequent years. Keep in mind we don’t have much history from what happened to most of the rest of the world.
Too there is the knowledge that, in Canada at least, each 1C degree of average temperature allows for reliable farming at 1 degree latitude further North. Cooling would mean the reverse. 3C cooling would mean almost no food grown in Canada.
Bindidon,
“And that you call winter ???
We had 50 km south of Berlin nearly no snow, one night with -10 C, three with -7 C. And in Berlin, it was way warmer UHI!”
–
Winter is when you need some inside houses heating appliences on.
–
What do you do to get warm, Bindidon? A heat pump, fossil fuels burning?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As I often enough wrote, the last winter deserving this name we had in 2010/11. (I don’t mention 1985/86, 78/79, 62/63, 55/56: all harsh & snowy winters I still remember.)
Inside house heating we need here by beginning of November.
We live here in northern Germoney, and not στη νότια Ελλάδα.
If we owned the house we live in, we would have had renewable energy installed 20 years ago, which would have helped us save a lot of gas, the price of which has been rising for years (way more than electricity generated out of… gas), especially since Russia invaded Ukraine.
We also wouldn’t be stûpid enough to have a heat pump installed in a house that’s more than 75 years old.
We live in Athens “στη νότια Ελλάδα.”
We live in a small appartment of our own, in a 50 years old house.
We were used to central heating system operation (petrol) on winter, regardless of the outside temperature conditions for cold days 7 hours.
7AM -9AM
13PM -15PM
18PM -21PM
When it was warmer, some of the hours were skipped.
–
Now we use central heating system once a day only when it is really cold outside. 18PM -21PM.
–
This year we used it only once, not now, because it is warm outside.
–
When the cold is unbearable, we use an air-conditioning unit in our bedroom. And I have a small electric heater 400W under the desk in my small study, when the temperature there is below 15 C.
–
When it is 13 C in my study, I spend the day in bed, under many warm covers. Of course I visit my study, to see what you and other friends had to comment, and then running back to bed.
–
It is 18 C were I am having the pleasure to write to you now, Bindidon, so I write at large extend. My fingers are not cold, it is a good sign it is warm enough.
–
We have a very important renevable energy application, it is the solar water heater 200 litre on the roof of the house, which saved us annually about 40% on the electricity bills.
Today the water is very hot, because we had enough sun.
–
Our building has not gas line supply, the line stopped two streets away.
The gas was much cheaper then, and we envied those who had gas for heating. Suddenly everything has changed. Gas became very expensive, electricity became very expensive.
–
Also we are getting poorer day-after-day. There are many buildings in Athens they quit central heating in winters, no matter how cold it is.
What they do? Some use air-conditioning units, others use electric blankets…
Thanks God, we live in Southern Greece, it is warm most of the time here, and it will be warmer as the Global Warming advances!
–
Thank you for you patience. While I was writing it started raining. It is a sign the weather changes for the colder. What to wait for, it is 5th of December, only 20 days to Christmass.
Christos…thanks for sharing your living conditions in Greece. We tend to forget here in North America how hard people have it in other parts of the world. Energy has been inexpensive but it won’t be for long if the eco-alarmists have their way.
Here in the province of British C0lumbia, we have many natural water resources for generating electrical power. It should be inexpensive if run by the government but a few years ago a right-wing government sold our government-run power corporation to private enterprise. The Federal government sold Petro-Canada, a government-run oil company to private enterprise. Now, the people of Canada have no say in the price of oil or electrical power. We sell our natural resources to international buyers at very low prices.
Still…life seems less expensive and more comfortable in cold weather here than in Greece. Good luck, my friend. I hope things get better for you but I fear the European Union does not care.
Walter R. Hogle
” Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area… ”
Subjective? Are you serious, Mr Hogle?
I compare since years all winters preceding the current year (last one: 2022) in the database of my weather forecaster ‘wetteronline.de’, and have also downloaded and processed since years the temperature data provided by DWD, the German Weather Service:
https://tinyurl.com/48tphx3d grrr (d c)
leading to this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj-ZkMcsJDVVf3C5zf22BG9p3UV9X7ZR/view
*
You are the one here whose gut feeling lets him guess about the alleged existence of a strong link between Arctic temperatures and ours here – an existence you unfortunately never would be able to scientifically prove.
Come back here when you will have done the same job by your own.
We will then see how far you will be able to contradict my ‘subjective definition of what winter is in [my] area’.
Bindidon,
Sure, I’ll do that. In which part of Germany do you reside? I’ll work on refining my estimate of the temperature change. It seems you believe anomalies reflect the change in climate.
“You are the one here whose gut feeling lets him guess about the alleged existence of a strong link between Arctic temperatures and ours here an existence you unfortunately never would be able to scientifically prove.”
Wrong. In fact, the high pressure situated over Greenland and the North Atlantic is what caused the recent record cold and snowy outbreak in Europe.
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/
Mr Hogle
” It seems you believe anomalies reflect the change in climate. ”
Sorry: nonsense. I don’t believe anything the like.
It seems that you love to insinuate: best fit to what other posters do here.
*
We live here in Northeast Germoney, 50 km south of Berlin.
I recently downloaded recent DWD data for a weather station near Berlin; here is the top10 of an ascending sort of the absolute temperatures (starting with Jan 1973):
1987 1 -7.86 (C)
1986 2 -7.69
1985 1 -6.10
2010 1 -5.45
2010 12 -5.33
1980 1 -4.91
1979 1 -4.48
1996 1 -4.47
2006 1 -4.45
1979 2 -3.83
The first 2023 month appears at position 131 in the sort:
2023 2 +3.12
*
I have read the document you posted a link to, and both the estimate
” However next week above normal temperatures will become more widespread while below normal temperatures will become mostly limited to Scandinavia. ”
and the forecast picture for Dec/Jan/Feb 2023/24 match exactly what I have read elsewhere at least one week ago.
*
I now come back to your condescending tone:
” Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area… ”
Here is an objective series of temperature minima graphs for the station near Berlin.
1. This December 2023 till today
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=01&year=2024&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
2. Dec/Jan/Feb 2022/23
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2023&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
3. Dec/Jan/Feb 2010/11
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2011&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
4. Dec/Jan/Feb 2009/10
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2010&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
*
I repeat my allegedly ‘subjective’ definition of what is here a winter, Mr Hogle:
” 2010/11 was the last winter deserving that name. ”
And, as we easily can see, 2009/10 was even worse than its successor.
*
The fact that southern Germany recently had so much snow has nothing to do with Arctic cold but with the collision of two low pressure areas – one with colder temperatures from the Arctic, one with warmer temperatures from southern Spain and northern Africa.
*
Thirty years ago, we still had here so called ‘continental winters’ – cold and dry, due to high pressure areas originating from Russia; these have been in between replaced by continuous series of low pressure areas originating from Northwest Atlantic.
*
Feel free to follow your forecaster blogs; I prefer to have a look at real data.
That awkward phase when your global climate conference is chaired by the Arab CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies.
The president of Cop28, the 50 year old Emirati oil executive Sultan Al Jaber who is U.A.E Minister of industry and advanced technology, Head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and chairman of Masdar (State owned renewable energy company), denies being a denier.
On Monday, a defiant Al Jaber suggested that what you heard him say is not what he said, and to claim otherwise is just an effort to undermine his leadership of COP28, so stop saying what he did not say. So there!
https://youtu.be/i5yN_P3vDX4
LOL! Its funny how all the climate nerds all copy the same adjectives. ”Sultan al-Jaber defiantly denies. . .”
They are like a troop of monkeys, or crew of parakeets, or a pandemonium of parrots.
ROTFLMAO!
There’s no adjective in that phrase.
Sorry to confuse you barry with what I said, my bad. I left out adverb! The same adjectives cam also be widely mimicked a pandemonium of Parrots.
Is the adjective in the room with you right now, Gill?
Is it really the case Willard that you don’t have anything better to do?
Good question, Gill.
Have you asked that question about yourself?
you don’t add anything
A wrote –
“On Monday, a defiant Al Jaber suggested that what you heard him say is not what he said, and to claim otherwise is just an effort to undermine his leadership of COP28, so stop saying what he did not say.”
A defiant suggestion that he didn’t say what he said.
OK. And . . . ?
Bill wrote “Sultan al-Jaber defiantly denies” and said there was an adjective.
Yes, it’s probably best to ignore what Bill writes.
barry,
OK. Defiant is an adjective, you are a Dingleberry, and who cares anyway?
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE that agrees with reality yet?
I didnt think so.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
“Defiantly” is an adverb and Ahmed is an asshat.
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Who the heck is Ahmed? Is he another of your imaginary people? Are you perhaps referring to the President of COP28?
Does your pointless opinion (asshat) apply to the people who were involved in his appointment as President?
Oh well, if you don’t like Arabs, you don’t like Arabs. Maybe you should complain to the United Nations Climate Change Conference organisers.
Only joking – who would value the opinion of an asshat like you?
Whining Wee Willy,
Who the heck is Ahmed? Is he another of your imaginary people? Are you perhaps referring to the President of COP28?
Does your pointless opinion (asshat) apply to the people who were involved in his appointment as President?
Oh well, if you don’t like Arabs, you don’t like Arabs. Maybe you should complain to the United Nations Climate Change Conference organisers.
Only joking – who would value the opinion of an asshat like you?
By the way, where did I say “defiantly” was not an adverb? Nowhere, that’s where!
Asshat.
It’s just a flesh wound, Mike.
The global climate conferences are scams aimed at enabling the politically-correct to control the rest of us. The A-rabs running global oil companies are doing the same.
Birds of a feather…
A strong stratospheric blockage over the Bering Sea (here at 500 hPa in the troposphere) will draw a cold front to the west coast of North America, with heavy rain on the coast and snow in the mountains.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/12/06/2000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-128.14,57.66,888
https://i.ibb.co/prnR2d9/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
> Water vapour is also a trace gas
You heard it first at Roy’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_gas
If include Water vapor, it’s not a trace gas, it varies a lot, as high as 4% {tropics] and far less than 1% {polar regions in winter}.
Because we are in an Ice Age, water vapor varies a lot. Most of Earth history has not been in Ice Age. And the coldest in last few million years of this Ice Age, is even rarer, in Earth’s history.
Or a greenhouse global climate is much more common, and in greenhouse global climate, water vapor in far more uniform, globally.
> If include Water vapor, its not a trace gas,
What is *it*?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What is “it””?
Don’t you know?
Mike Flynn,
No, I don’t.
Do you?
Cheers.
That’s good to know that you don’t know.
At least you don’t know what you don’t know, so how would I?
Good communication and proper learning may help, Mike.
A pity you never really tried them.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Water definitely seems to satisfy the requirements of a “trace gas” in areas like the arid deserts, the continent of Antarctica, and any place with extremely low humidity.
Here’s another definition (from the European space agency) –
“A trace gas makes up less than 1% by volume of a planet’s atmosphere.” As you can see, definitions vary.”
Your Wikipedia definition seems a bit vague to me, as “small amounts” is open to wide interpretation. Given the ESA definition, argon is a trace gas.
What is your cutoff point for “traciness”?
Mike Flynn,
Seems?
Satisfy?
Requirement?
What are you braying about?
swenson…a lot less than 1%, about 0.31% in fact. WV concentration can be several percent in the Tropics but overall it is about 0.31%.
The sun was out and warm yesterday until the contrail haze set in. How is nobody else noticing it?
This is very well noticed.
But for me only because I know it exists.
We have very few international flight routes overhead and the few that we do have are not very busy.
darwin…I asked you this before. Are you sure you are not confusing airline vapour trails with a species of cloud that appears as long, narrow furrows? I have seen these clouds extending across the entire sky.
If you consider how much vapour is created by jet engines and compare that to the size of the atmosphere immediately overhead, do you really think the jet trail is capable of filling the entire sky? Any contrails I have seen break up in the vicinity of where they were laid down.
Darwin Wyatt
” contrail haze ”
You might read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_aviation
Don’t be surprised if some of the den~ier geniuses come here and tell you that Wiki is not trustworthy at all (unless it fits their personal narrative).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_-SebtoC-I
SpaceX Starship: 2nd Tower Incoming! Starbase Is Transforming To Gateway!
Hmm, should I talk about lunar crew landing or global temperature?
I was thinking perhaps rocket launches are causing global air temperature increase. We having a lot rocket launches, and we going to get a lot more.
And I am not denying the huge amount water tossed into high atmosphere {volcanic eruption} is unrelated.
But it terms of Starship and the Moon, I think a problem with NASA guesses about tanker launches needed is related to the details of how Starship could be descent and ascent lunar vehicle.
Or the entire second stage of Starship is going to land on the moon, but entire second stage doesn’t have leave the Moon.
Or with Apollo the descent stage was left on the Moon. And if plan was to leave the Moon with the descent stage, Saturn V rocket, would have needed to a lot bigger rocket.
–Why We Should Settle Mars
Space exploration will bring us inventions that benefit humanity. And it will help us avoid war.
Robert Zubrin
4 Dec 2023 12 min read —
https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Spacefaring civilization is what I mean by open borders.
People will legally go to countries, borders crossing is outdated
and crazy old idea.
Establishing human settlements on Mars falls into one or more of the following categories:
1/ Herculean task: a task that is very difficult and requires great strength of mind or body, and courage.
2/ Sisyphean task: a task that can never be completed.
3/ Icarian task: when you have a task you know you’re going to fail at anyways, so why not have some fun with it before it all comes crashing down.
4/ Cassandrean task: when you have to deal with people you know won’t listen to you, despite having accurate information, and having to watch them fumble about when you told them the solution from the start.
5/ Odyssean task: when you set out to do a task. You keep getting distracted, turned around, or delayed. You finally finish what you set out to do…but it’s been ten years, and you can’t really explain how you’ve managed to become so disastrously late.
Well, first you have explore the Moon.
The purpose of exploring the Moon, I far as concern is
mainly about the question, can NASA explore the Moon.
So, far, it’s looking sightly better than the last 40 years that
NASA has failed to explore the Moon.
I thought NASA might start exploring Moon sometime after 1998, and they made a bit of effort, but roughly, I would say they had been late, and presently they seem to want to delay doing it.
Or Biden might have hoped we could have landed on the Moon before he tries to get re-elected, but NASA saying 2028.
But there other factors other than what NASA wants. But it might prove that since NASA can’t explore the lunar polar region, Congress could have little faith in NASA exploring Mars.
But things can turn around NASA might land crew on Moon by 2025 and might finish before 2030, so it have the support and funding to explore Mars.
Meanwhile, Musk is richest person in the world, on the brink of getting far richer, and he wants to live on Mars.
So, if NASA fails to start and finish exploring a very small part of the Moon. And therefore gets no funding to explore Mars. Musk might do something crazy, gamble on starting a Mars settlement without having enough exploration of Mars being done. Or as he said, people are going to die trying to live on Mars. There is no shortage of adventurous people- and some them are dying trying to climb mount Everest. Or simply jumping out of perfectly functioning planes.
Or riding motorcycle, or simply using a pedaled bike on roads with cars. The list is long.
With NASA I think it could save more lives, so I root for NASA to get it’s butt in gear.
So all you need, to meet every task, is a club, a rock, a chariot, bad hair, and a mast.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
“Establishing human settlements on Mars falls into one or more of the following categories:”
One could ask, what do space settlements do?
They could do very little, a billionaire could spend a billion or two, and make a space settlement.
So, Bill Gates could decide to make a space settlement, and might ask, what cheapest way to do it.
The cheapest way to do it, is to build artificial gravity station in low Earth orbit. And to do it cheap, what the least amount of people
in a space station, which one could claim is a space settlement.
Though rather how many people, it’s better to think what the people do. Or one could have a small number people, who doing something important, which might be called a settlement. But if that’s not easy, enough, you might pick a number like 20 people. Now 20 people would have do something, it could be less important what they do.
Or 200 people, would be settlement, but Bill is trying to control his costs.
So, Bill going to start with just a few people and than grow it to 20 people, and call that a space settlement.
Of course testing and then having 20 people living in orbit, would probably be important without those people doing much. So one guy does something maybe later regarded and more significant than Apollo program. Probably worth couple billion, and you could count that as first human settlement in space. But what important is testing artificial gravity {which NASA has so far, failed to do.}
Now, Bill could do the same thing with Mars, but at moment not doable and more expensive.
But what Musk wants and Mars fans want is starting civilization on Mars and a civilization has towns/cities.
It seems to me, what activity these people will do, is a lot exploration of Mars. So, NASA does enough exploration, and people do a lot more exploration. But the focus is on, how people can live, how to make food, housing, transportation, etc. And the costs related to this.
As with California gold rush, the miners {explorers} didn’t make much money, it was infrastructure type stuff which made money.
I would think one type of gold rush with Mars is exploration and discoveries of cave systems. NASA is also going to look for “best caves” for their purposes but one could assume, there will be improvements in finding a lot more caves.
Now, I have said there has to be mineable water for settlements on Mars {I don’t mean the Bill Gates make some settlement- that’s about a having a cheaper big enough rocket- and not what meant about having settlements on Mars- though one called it that}.
Also another thing having a religion. Only religious people will start settlements on Mars.
Also, if not religious, you will become religious.
If anybody is curious why I didn’t follow Nate down his rabbit hole, and show him the location of recorded lectures which he wouldnt believe anyway, here’s a quote from Feynman’s transcribed lectures –
“First, meteorology and the weather. Of course the instruments of meteorology are physical instruments, and the development of experimental physics made these instruments possible, as was explained before. However, the theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist. [. . . ] In many fields we find this situation of turbulent flow that we cannot analyze today. Quickly we leave the subject of weather, and discuss geology!”
Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.
SkyDragon cultists and Dingleberries even refuse to accept that the IPCC stated it is not possible to predict future climate states – the statistics, of course, of instantaneous atmospheric states over a nominal period. Their statement is based on chaos theory, but quantum theory arrives at the same conclusion.
So much for self proclaimed geniuses who perform “thought experiments” (known to normal people as fantasies, or wishful thinking.
I’m hoping someone can explain why the same uncertainty that makes weather unpredictable beyond a week doesn’t make Summer sometimes colder than Winter.
IOW, why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?
barry,
Maybe, instead of hoping, you could educate yourself.
Your question is a bit silly. Summer and winter are generally defined in terms of temperatures, or particular times of the year. What would you call “winter” in a city like Singapore?
“Singapore is situated near the equator and has a typically tropical climate, with abundant rainfall, high and uniform temperatures, and high humidity all year round. Many of its climate variables, such as temperature and relative humidity, do not show large month-to-month variation.”
As to summer sometimes being colder than winter, sometimes it is – unpredictably. 1816 is recorded as “the year without summer”. We say we know why, but we can’t predict when the next one will occur.
You wrote “IOW, why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”. Ask a 12 year old. If you are not happy with the answer, find a better one. When you say “predictable” what do you mean? You can’t expect a 12 year old to answer your question when you can’t say what prediction you expect. Total rainfall? Average temperature to 0.1 C? Hours of sunshine? Average wind speed and direction?
What part of “seasonal climate change” do you think you can predict? Climate is normally historical weather observations over 30 years, but if you claim “climate change” is “seasonal”, you might need to find a fairly dim 12 year old.
Good luck.
Due to a dearth of dim 12 year-olds I’m throwing this out to anyone who is at least as smart if not smarter.
Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?
Tim,
Maybe they’re confused, but here’s Nissan’s –
“e-POWER’s internal combustion engine achieves 50% thermal efficiency” Other manufacturers have their own versions.” Here’s one of the Chinese contributions – “awarded Weichai certificates for brake thermal efficiency of 50.26%.”
I haven’t the faintest idea of the efficiency my ICE sedan is, nor do I care, particularly.
I just wondered if the claimed efficiency increase of hybrids is partially due to being able to run an ICE engine at optimal design RPM.
Not terribly important, I know.
barry,
Sorry. I’ve done it again.
You asked –
“Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
Can’t you find an answer anywhere else? What do you mean by “seasonal climate change”? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
If you are wondering why the Earth’s axis is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, or something similar, it might be helpful if you at least let people know what you are really curious about.
I am surprised you don’t know why the seasons are what they are. They are not the same year after year, as many farmers can attest. For example, try to predict whether next planting season will be good, bad, or indifferent. Good luck.
Or are you just attempting a gotcha? Naughty, naughty!
Barry, Clearly Swenson has no answer to your quite straightforward question.
So he plays dum.b. Not a stretch for him.
Gordon tried to play dumb too, but at least answered the question straightforwardly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570402
Nate,
You are off with the fairies.
Bumbling barry posed a bizarre gotcha –
“Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
The IPCC clearly stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. I agree. “Seasonal climate change” is just more silly word salad, produced by a SkyDragon cultist trying to appear intelligent. Seasons are yearly, climate is nominally over 30 years.
Maybe someone values your opinion, but I doubt you could find another to go with them.
Carry on.
So we note that nowhere in Feynman’s quote is he linking meteorology with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Thus it is clear that Swenson simply LIED about it.
And he DOUBLES DOWN on it here:
“Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.”
Where is the quote?
Nate,
Go find it. All you have yo do is listen to Feynman’s audio lphysics ectures.
If you miss it, convince me that you have listened to them all, and I’ll give you the location.
Ho ho ho!
No I won’t – why should I lift a finger to help someone who wrote –
“Thus it is clear that Swenson simply LIED about it.”
I’m happy to let others form their opinion as to whether I lied or not (I didn’t, incidentally).
When I wrote “Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.”, I was trying to avoid embarrassing you, sticking to Feynmans introductory remarks for a physics course.
You may believe what you wish. My care factor is approximately zero.
Eben
Predicted on November 21 that el Nino had reached its peak and was already diminishing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561822
He repeated this 2 days later:
“El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
The NOAA results are in for November, and the el Nino anomaly is higher than last month’s.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
In the context of the controversial statements by the host of COP28, the CEO of Chevron, Mike Wirth, is a frequent guest on the financial talk shows. He makes a compelling case that his company, and the oil and gas industry as a whole, have a role to play in the future of energy production. Chevron has a large stake in world-wide LNG production as well as its petroleum business.
The fact remains that electric cars do not generate, they consume electricity, and are only slightly more efficient at burning natural gas at the power plant, than an internal combustion engine burning petroleum products. We have a very long way to go before carbon emissions stop growing, let alone decline.
Tim,
I wonder whether properly designed hybrids are actually more efficient overall. The ICE can be optimised to run at constant RPM, for maximum efficiency. Up to about 60% in theory, with >50 % currently available.
There are inevitable losses in getting electricity into an EV battery, and compromises and losses transforming the battery output into motive power. Maybe a hybrid is more efficient overall?
BEVs seem excellent for niche use, but for my purposes I can’t justify buying a hybrid.
So sad, too bad. Just have to put up with old technology.
Not even close. The maximum efficiency of the most advanced car engine is about 35%. The most efficient engines in the world are massive long-stroke crosshead ship engines that run at 75 rpm.
https://c2e2.unepccc.org/kms_object/improving-ship-efficiency/
“The efficiency of Wrtsil diesel and gas engines ranges between 42-52%, depending on the engine type. The peaking efficiency of 52% for the best engines is one of the highest efficiency ratings among existing prime movers”
The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery. Trains throw away that recovered energy with resistance heaters (those big blowers on top of the engines).
tim s…”The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery”.
***
Electric motors are highly efficient but battery output varies wildly with temperature. Most batteries become useless below 0C. I cannot see how that limitation can be overcome. In colder climates here in Canada, it is necessary to use block heaters and even battery heater blankets.
What exactly do you think an alternator does in a conventional car engine? It charges the battery up to 35 amps and without it the battery would be dead very soon. Cranking an average car requires 600+ amps and I’d estimate that keeping it running with its extensive electrical system would require 10 amps or more.
Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.
It’s tough to find the actual electrical consumption of an electric car motor since all the nimrods discussing it are talking about battery chargers. However, if a car motor was rated at 100 HP that would be 746 watts/HP x 100 HP = 74,600 watts of power.
Since P = EI, for a 12 volts battery that would require a draw of 74,600/12 = 6216 amps. Not practical. I have read that electrical vehicle motors runs around 100 volts, which is a lot of batteries at 2 volts per battery. So, I = 74,600/100 = 746 amps. Still high. I am sure designers have tricks to make it work.
I am trying to illustrate the difficulty of running an electric car. Commercial EV use batteries of 350 – 400 volts and some are double that at 800 volts. I have seen lead-acid batteries rated at 800 amp-hours @ 2volts. They are huge, too heavy to lift.
Gordon, I am always happy to educate where necessary. You wrote this:
“Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.”
The diesel engines require cooling, and the generators may require some cooling that is exhausted through blowers on the roof, but that is not the major cooling load. The only way an electric motor can apply braking is to work as a generator. Thus the term regenerative drive. As I explained, that voltage is used to charge the battery in an electric car, but in a locomotive, that voltage is used to make heat with resistance heaters, and most of the big blowers are there to exhaust that heat to increase the steady-state capacity of the engine braking.
I used the term “engine braking” when I should have stated “motor braking”. I thought of something else. The individual rail cars have brakes, but the train engineer will prefer not to use them unless necessary. It is self preservation. Just like in a tractor-trailer truck, the brakes are not rated for heavy use, and can overheat easily. They use them as a last resort, or when necessary on steep grades. The rail car brakes can also overheat and generate sparks that cause fires.
sorry…may be duplicate…
tim s…”The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery”.
***
Electric motors are highly efficient but battery output varies wildly with temperature. Most batteries become useless below 0C. I cannot see how that limitation can be overcome. In colder climates here in Canada, it is necessary to use block heaters and even battery heater blankets.
What exactly do you think an alternator does in a conventional car engine? It charges the battery up to 35 amps and without it the battery would be dead very soon. Cranking an average car requires 600+ amps and I’d estimate that keeping it running with its extensive electrical system would require 10 amps or more.
Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.
It’s tough to find the actual electrical consumption of an electric car motor since all the nimrods discussing it are talking about battery chargers. However, if a car motor was rated at 100 HP that would be 746 watts/HP x 100 HP = 74,600 watts of power.
Since P = EI, for a 12 volts battery that would require a draw of 74,600/12 = 6216 amps. Not practical. I have read that electrical vehicle motors runs around 100 volts, which is a lot of batteries at 2 volts per battery. So, I = 74,600/100 = 746 amps. Still high. I am sure designers have tricks to make it work.
I am trying to illustrate the difficulty of running an electric car. Commercial EV use batteries of 350 – 400 volts and some are double that at 800 volts. I have seen lead-acid batteries rated at 800 amp-hours @ 2volts. They are huge, too heavy to lift.
Tim,
Maybe they’re confused, but here’s Nissan’s –
“e-POWER’s internal combustion engine achieves 50% thermal efficiency” Other manufacturers have their own versions.” Here’s one of the Chinese contributions – “awarded Weichai certificates for brake thermal efficiency of 50.26%.”
I haven’t the faintest idea of the efficiency my ICE sedan is, nor do I care, particularly.
I just wondered if the claimed efficiency increase of hybrids is partially due to being able to run an ICE engine at optimal design RPM.
Not terribly important, I know.
I have the perfect answer that requires a forbidden term. Thermal efficiency requires that the heat of the combustion products be recovered. The work done by an engine is related directly to heat extracted from the gases (#1 law).
Here is the fun part. That actually IS in the #2 law that you folks get all excited about! It is accomplished by using a long stroke and slow rpm to extract as much temperature from the gases as possible.
There is another angle. Formula 1 race cars use the turbine of the turbo charger to power an electric generator. Just using the turbo charger in the conventional way is not as efficient because the compressed gases (even with an intercooler) cause high combustion temperatures so the turbine exhaust is still very hot.
Tim,
Quick cur and paste from internet –
“F1 regulations also limit the cars to 110 kilograms of fuel, or the equivalent of 36.7 gallons. To achieve the necessary power and efficiency, F1 engines achieve a peak thermal efficiency above 50 percent, significantly higher than a modern passenger car’s 35 percent thermal efficiency.”
I don’t know whether this is true or not. I was involved with screwing maximum power out of given capacity (naturally aspirated) – fuel consumption and efficiency wasn’t a big consideration. Quite often, reality sabotaged good ideas.
Oh well, experience is a good teacher.
A typical ICE is 20% efficient. So it burns 5 units of Fossil Fuel energy, for every 1 unit of converted to work to drive the car.
NET 5 units FF burned for 1 unit of useful work for an ICE.
Now electricity is currently 60 % Fossil Fuel generated in the US.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Let’s say an EV loses 10% in charging losses. The power plant is 40% efficient at generating electricity, and 10 % transmission losses and another 10% engine loss in the vehicle.
So that is NET 40%*0.9*0.9*0.9 = 29%. So it needs 3.45 units of energy * 60% FF = 2.1 units of Fossil Fuel energy burned for each unit of useful work to drive the car.
NET 2.1 units of FF burned for 1 unit of useful work for an EV.
This neglects the regenerative braking and idling gains in an EV, and the fact that natural gas produces less CO2 than gasoline.
So EVs are helpful to CO2 emissions right now, but will be even MORE helpful as more renewable electricity comes online.
Not a typical ICE Nate. ”New Toyota 2.0L gasoline four achieves 40% BTE in conventional version, 41% in Atkinson cycle version for hybrid models.”
As reported by SAE International.
And idling gains are going by the wayside. A new KIA ICE doesn’t idle but shuts off instead. You can turn that feature off but its the default each time you restart the car.
Currently science estimates ICEs will be able in the future to achieve 60% efficiency. This is why the government should just stay out of this space and let the natural frugality and environmental sensitivity of customers and capitalistic innovation address the issue. Less efficiency will be achieved and is already being heavily hampered by regulation, in particular the CAFE standards that makes it impossible to by a fuel efficient pickup truck as the standards are locked into a total wheelbase footprint area such that the old small trucks are illegal in the US despite having a smaller carbon footprint. Tons of contractors who need a truck used to use these trucks more than the larger less fuel efficient ones they now need to use.
“Not a typical ICE Nate. New Toyota 2.0L gasoline four..’
A new engine is by definition, not TYPICAL.
I am also not talking about Diesel engines, I am taking about regular gasoline engines.
Diesel cars have air pollution problems in any case.
i didn’t say 40% was typical. the comparison needed is new engines vs new evs as they are all new. and the 40% number was hit 5 years ago by toyota, with estimates that 60% will be achievable.
the only worthwhile comparison are cars that people add to the road their cost, reliability, and increase in efficiency. i realize the fascists in the room don’t agree with that.
the theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine is 55 to 60 percent and commonly in cars 45 to 50 percent is achieved. Diesel is therefore by your calculations already more efficient before you add in the extra 30 percent vehicle weight of the battery pack for the equivalent EV.
Most of the calculations for EV assume that it is powered by renewable energy, which in most countries is wrong, as these do not meet the existing domestic and industrial demand. So Fossil fuels are actually powering the full electricity requirement of EVs.
Also you are ignoring the extra energy and emissions from initial manufacture.
Although vague I have seen calculations that suggest an EV charged by purely renewable electricity needs to travel 70000 miles to recoup the extra emissions generated in the manufacturing process.
Whilst I can see the advantage of them on pollution grounds in cities, their “green reputation” is exaggerated.
I was not talking about Diesel engines. But you can calculate with them.
From Wikipedia.
“The average efficiency over a motor vehicle driving cycle is lower than the diesel engine’s peak efficiency (for example, a 37% average efficiency for an engine with a peak efficiency of 44%)”
Another issue is that most cars use gasoline, and that is not likely to change.
“Crude oil is transported by pipelines and oceangoing tankers to refineries. About 45 percent of a typical barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. An additional 29 percent is refined to diesel fuel.”
Assuming the discussion is about reality, and not hype or fantasy, the fact remains that fossil fuels remain in the mix for a long time. My personal favorite for a long term solution is a plug-in hybrid with a small diesel generator for extended range and backup power. Biodiesel is the easiest sustainable fuel to produce, so that goes to a long range 20 to 50 year answer.
The battery remains an important issue. We still need the next generation battery to make this work. The Prius was ground breaking with the Nickelmetal hydride battery and limited electric range. Tesla went a step further with the lithium-ion battery. More can be done with energy density, but without causing overheating and a fire hazard. The Tesla Model S has an empty weight of over 4700 pounds.
Jet fuel is the most difficult because it has so many constraints. It has to be stable enough for exposure to high heat without forming slug or becoming viscous. It must remain clean enough that it will not form precipitates of any kind at extremely low temperatures. The spec for cloud point (wax precipitation) is a very low temperature.
“Nate says: Lets say an EV loses 10% in charging losses. The power plant is 40% efficient at generating electricity, and 10 % transmission losses and another 10% engine loss in the vehicle.”
Combined cycle electric plants that provide much of the baseload power in the US are about 60% efficient. Thus 40% is conservative, but is about what the gas peaker plants that meet peak electrical demand.
Assuming home charging, EVs can be configured to charge at specific times, such that they can avoid peaks in demand-based pricing which corresponds to the times these less efficient peaker plants are running.
The high efficiency power plants are cogen plants where a neighbor or internal production process can utilize low pressure steam as waste heat. Otherwise, the power plant will use a surface condenser utilizing cooling tower water to produce a near vacuum at the turbine exhaust, increase efficiency, and recover the clean condensate to use for boiler feed water. Maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a high pressure turbine with a surface condenser is about 43%. It is lower for some plants.
There is one more technology that is not ready for prime time, or maybe no time at all, and that is the ceramic engine. Metal engines have to have a cooling system because metal loses strength as it softens with temperature. The cooling system draws heat and efficiency from the engine. The pistons are the most vulnerable, and can only be cooled by the oil which also has temperature limitations.
Ceramic engines have been tested with materials that operate at the combustion temperature (1700 F or 925 C) and have magical bearings that do not require oil. There are production cost limitations that prevent them from being mass produced. Keep dreaming.
Modern high-bypass jet engines operate with improved efficiency because they use exotic metal alloys in the turbine stage that are very expensive. Composites are now used in the first stage compressor because it does not get very hot.
barry…”why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
***
Barry, Barry, Barry…where do you dig up this pseudo-science? A change in seasons is not climate change. It is a reflection of a change in the Earth’s orbital position.
Weather changes from season to season due to different levels of incoming solar. As the planet’s tilt causes a different intensity of solar in northern climes, for example, sometimes cutting off solar altogether, it gets colder in those areas. It gets a lot colder, not the pithy 1C change of temperature claimed by climate alarmists over 170 years, but as much as a 60C difference or more.
When the North polar regions drop to -60C and it’s still almost as warm in the tropics, that temperature difference leads to drastic changes in weather. That is not a climate change.
Same in Antarctica when the tilt produces extreme cold there.
Even here on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada, in the Vancouver area, temperatures in winter average 5C to 10C during the day. In summer, the variation is 15C to 35C, I would guess averaging about 25C. The Earth’s tilt causes such variations, not climate change.
I am beginning to understand why you are an alarmist, you have no idea what climate is, or the distinction between climate and weather. Weather is real, climate is a human definition.
Gordon Robertson: “Climate is a mathematical average of weather”
Also Gordon Robertson: “Weather changes from season to season”
Also also Gordon Robertson: “A change in seasons is not climate change”
That’s a straightforward syllogism which you have failed. Let’s try again.
If climate is the mathematical average of weather
And the mathematical average of weather changes with the seasons
Then the changes in the seasons represent changes in climate
Having fixed your bad logic, I want to thank you for answering the question.
“Weather changes from season to season due to different levels of incoming solar.”
And that seasonal change is as regular as the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Barring some extraordinary event, Summer is always hotter than Winter.
This extends to regional climate zones across the Earth. The mathematical average of weather in the tropical zone will never be as cold as the poles. The chaotic nature of weather cannot change this permanent feature. Only a radical departure from billions of years of orbital dynamics can do that.
Climate is not chaotic. Weather is.
Nate,
Your faith is touching.
You wrote –
“Climate is not chaotic. Weather is.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
These weather observations are chaotic. Their statistics are chaotic. Yes, really.
Even the IPCC sets out the reasons why it is not possible to predict future climate states “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Are you confusing chaotic with random? Do you understand the difference?
Keep praying – you might get a miracle in response to your prayers. Maybe not.
I’m not Nate, but climate isn’t random, either.
The butterfly effect is an analogy regarding chaos theory, not randomness. Someone mentioned it upthread in reply to a comment about climate.
A farmer who plants and cuts a crop at any old time of the year, believing seasonal climate to be random, will soon go bankrupt.
But go ahead and tell a farmer than she can’t rely on Summer being warmer than Winter because of one bad year in some countries 200 years ago.
barry,
Sorry for calling you Nate.
You seem confused, and unwilling to accept the IPCC stating that it is not possible to predict climate states.
You write –
“A farmer who plants and cuts a crop at any old time of the year, believing seasonal climate to be random, will soon go bankrupt.” A person who did as you say is not what I would call a farmer, but no matter.
You may be confusing assumptions with predictions. If you believe you can predict seasonal conditions any better than a 12 year old, then you are obviously off with the fairies. Ask any farmer about predicting rainfall, temperature, and so on. Preferably one who has gone broke believing forecasts.
Yes, summer will be warmer than winter – unless it isnt. Rain before planting – not too much, not too little, just when it’s needed, would be nice. And so on.
“Fruit severely injured during a freeze may drop quickly or may drop more slowly over time, but usually the external appearance of the fruit is not significantly changed”
Good luck with predicting radiation frost. The air above the ground is actually warmer than the ground! Don’t believe me? I suggest you don’t try being a citrus farmer in California or Florida!
[laughing at friend of the fairies he’s off with]
“Ask any farmer about predicting rainfall, temperature, and so on… Fruit severely injured during a freeze…”
I see the mixing up of weather and climate continues.
bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“I see the mixing up of weather and climate continues.” This from a peabrain who wrote “seasonal climate”!
In any case, who cares what you “see”?
Others can read what they like, and form their opinions as they see fit, as far as I am concerned.
Suits me – how about you?
Donkey.
[seasonal climate? snigger]
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“who cares what you see?”
I do.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical cyclone Jasper will cover much of the Australian state of Queensland by next Wednesday.
https://i.ibb.co/gdN360z/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-06-110102.png
The more renewables we have, the harder it is to add.
–
The key question is how to shield an electricity system with many renewables.
–
A first answer is batteries, pumped storage which is a battery with water, hydropower, natural gas that will be part of the mix, coal that will be also part of the mix…
–
And, international interconnections and a smarter system that the consumer can shift consumption from moments when there is not enough energy to moments when there is.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” The more renewables we have, the harder it is to add. ”
Aha.
Here is how renewables used for (gross) electricity production developed in Germoney since 1990:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXs8kY7J/Gross-public-electricity-production-sources-Germany-1990-2022.png
Renewables’ gross numbers grew from 4% in 1990 (100% hydro from dams) up to 44 % in 2022 (wind on+off 22, solar 10.5, biowaste 8, hydro 3, …).
Gross production means: including the internal needs of the sector; excluding these leads to a more relevant comparison based on net production, e.g. for 2022:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZYsmN5G5/Net-public-electricity-production-sources-Germany-for-2022-b.png
Net renewables’s production is ~ 49%; fossile ~ 44, nuke ~ 7.
*
The major point (which is never mentioned by those who endlessly criticise the German way) is that all this stat doesn’t include even 1 kWh of renewables produced in the non-public sector (private; trade, industry), either for local use or injected in the public domain.
Apparently, there does not seem to exist valuable official data.
*
Finally, a mention on
– wind energy not used in electricity production by small windparks, due to a lack of investment will in new high voltage lines by their giant customers who are allowed to force their small suppliers to cut production whenever the old lines are overwhelmed;
– the brown coal horror due to conservatives protecting the industry and social democrats protecting jobs – both sides doing that against all odds.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Panama Canal has gotten so dry and backed up after brutal drought that shippers are paying up to $4m to jump the queue
They can wait in line for days or weeks, as low water levels limit the number of ships passing through the 50-mile waterway, carrying cars, consumer goods, fruit and fuel.
https://fortune.com/2023/12/04/panama-canal-dry-backed-up-brutal-drought-shippers-paying-4m-jump-queue
It seems if any government can control global climate, it’s the Chinese.
It seems that you really like this Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-china/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because solar flux interacts with spherical surface, and not with the flat disk.
Also,
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because it is not absorbed.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have already explained to you that your ‘flat disk’ is an illusion due to the product of latitude and longitude weighting by the cosine of the solar radiation angle varying from 0 to pi/2.
The integral of cos^2(a)da from 0 to pi/2 is 0.5, hence the pi * R^2 illusion of a disk in the equations, letting ‘skep~tics believe the writer of the equation would have ignored that Earth is a sphere, and that solar radiation hits a hemisphere.
A hemisphere is a shape, which is not a flat surface perpendicular to solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please reread what I wrote.
I explained that when computing the total amount of solar radiation hitting Earth’s ‘visible’ hemisphere perpendicular to the radiation, the result contains a pi * R^2 factor instead of 2 * pi * R^2, due to the squared cosine in the integration.
Your reaction shows that you did not understand this at all.
Binny,
And I have explained that anybody who believes that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the amount of sunlight falling upon it is a donkey.
You don’t understand physics at all – join the Association of Dingleberries. You’ll be among friends.
… and as expected, the Flynnson donkey once more throws sand in his readers’ eyes with completely stûpid, pseudo-skep~tical, pseudo-scientific ‘arguments’.
Binny,
Well, your refusal to acknowledge reality certainly shows up, doesnt it?
Have you any facts to support you, or are you just being a sauerkraut for fun?
If you wish to deny my statement that anybody who believes that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the amount of sunlight falling upon it is a donkey, just provide even one example to demonstrate that I am wrong.
You can’t, of course, so your only course is to continuously whine, moan, and complain.
Keep it up!
Binny,
Is that why the Earth’s surface has cooled from the molten state, do you think?
Would it help to ask “the writer of the equation”?
Maybe you prefer –
“The Executive Summary of Chapter 8 of the FAR entitled Detection of the greenhouse effect in the Observations, concluded thus: –
“The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead”” – from WUWT.
So, the IPCC can’t say that “the greenhouse theory” that doesn’t exist, and has never been described, is wrong! They would look pretty dim if they said otherwise, wouldn’t they?
Try another “equation”. Maybe 1 + 1 = 2?
Fluxes can not be simply added/subtracted/averaged. So Bindi attempts some calculus.
The cult divides by 4, claiming Earth receives 240 W/m^2, resulting in a temperature of 255K. Bindi’s method results in Earth receiving 480 W/m^2 and a temperature of 303K.
Notice Bindi’s method indicates that Earth’s systems cool if 15K!
Bindi has stumbled onto some reality. Now, if he could just learn about the simple ball-on-a-string….
Clint R,
Even worse, the donkeys think they can calculate the temperature of something by the amount of energy it is exposed to!
Here’s a few example of just how silly that is –
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
Full sunlight falls on a lens, which concentrates sunlight to a temperature of 3000 K. What’s the temperature of the lens?
Full sunlight falls on a plastic bowl of water. What’s the temperature of the water? If it contains ice?
The measured temperature anywhere on Earth is what it is. Not what it should be, would be, or could be.
Upthread, child Nate believes the distance between two towns might be 40 mph!
There’s not one responsible adult in their cult.
That makes sense, since responsible adults don’t join cults.
Clint R,
Ah sees it, but I doan believe it!
How pitifully weak-minded to fabricate the views of others in order and feel superior.
blundering barry,
You wrote –
“How pitifully weak-minded to fabricate the views of others in order and feel superior.”
Apart from your poor grammar (excusable, given your mental abilities), I don’t need to fabricate your views to feel superior.
Your unfabricated views would engender well founded feelings of superiority in any person with an IQ bigger than their shoe size, I suspect.
In any case, what views of yours have been “fabricated”? Maybe you could be a little more specific – but only if you wish to do so, of course. Otherwise, people might come to the conclusion that you are lying about others’ fabrications!
“the donkeys think they can calculate the temperature of something by the amount of energy it is exposed to!”
is a complete lie, for example.
Swenson, you lie all the time. It’s a filthy habit. The sneering prose couching your interminable lies doesn’t make you clever, I’m sorry to say, just more odious.
barry,
Off you go then – show how brilliant you are.
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
Full sunlight falls on a lens, which concentrates sunlight to a temperature of 3000 K. Whats the temperature of the lens?
Full sunlight falls on a plastic bowl of water. Whats the temperature of the water? If it contains ice?
Come on donkey, you wrote “Swenson, you lie all the time.”
Pity you can’t show any factual examples.Your opinions are not facts. Do you know anyone who values your opinions?
Swenson, if you point out, in any way, how invalid Barry’s beliefs are, he will use the word “lie”, in some form. When I pointed out that his cult believed ice cubes could boil water, he called me a “lying dog”. Even though cult member after cult member claimed ice cubes could boil water. One even provided a specific example, with formula of how that works. All fraud, of course.
Then barry had to go even more insane, claiming that “view factor” meant that ice could not boil water. Obviously he knows NOTHING about the science.
He’s been in a meltdown since.
That’s why this is so much fun.
No, Clint, no one believes that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water. If you had stopped repeating this lie you would not have been called a lying dog. But you keep barking this lie, and so you draw the epithet on you like a fly to sh!t.
Bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“No, Clint, no one believes that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.”
Go on Barry, claim something – anything at all to do with the supposed GHE! You won’t, will you?
Now tell me that you don’t believe that the radiation from even a vast amount of ice can warm even the tiniest amount of water – and why!
See? You won’t say what you believe, or why you believe it!
What does that indicate to normal people?
That you’re a wriggling Warmist worm – that’s what!
Wrong anonymous tr0ll barry.
Your cult openly believes ice can boil water. They’ve made a tool out of you. (Wasn’t hard.)
You used to fake a level of maturity, but now that your mask has been ripped off, you’re just another immature, uneducated cultist, like your cult brethren.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint. You. Lying. Dog.
I said no one here believes the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
And you replied by omitting the word radiation.
This is why you are not just a lying dog, but a filthy lying dog. A dirty little cheat.
I have witnessed people saying ice can boil in certain conditions, such as a completely different pressure around it. Which is true. And this is what you are referring to.
But this is not the basis of your repeated accusation, that because people (correctly) believe fluxes sum then they also believe radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
Because no one ever said that the radiative flux from any number of ice cubes can boil water. In fact, some of us have gone into detail with you on why that cannot be.
You’ve done it again, woofer. You can’t help it. There is something wrong with you. You have no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
But hey, I wouldn’t want to deny you an opportunity to prove that you are an honest person.
All you have to do is provide a link to anyone here saying that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
Because if you can’t, you know what that means.
barry, you keep denying the fact that your cult believes you can boil water with ice cubes. You’ve tried to obfuscate with “view factor”. Now, you’re trying to play semantics.
It’s been explained to you before. The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.
Now, you may continue your meltdown. I’ve already noticed your devolution into anal fetish. Let’s see if you can sink to the level of Norman.
The lie is exposed once again. You couldn’t find a link to anyone here saying the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
And you have confirmed that it is indeed about radiation and not pressure or triple point of water.
So you continue to lie like a dog.
No one here believes radiation from ice cubes can boil water. But you say that people do, because you are a bare, white-faced liar.
Even after people have explained that the difference between radiosity and irradiance is why ice cubes can’t radiatively raise the surface of any object above the temperature of ice….
You still continue to lie and lie and lie, and you do it shamelessly.
Clint:
“The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
Oh dear. You have as usual confused the 315 W/m2 emitted by the ice cube with the flux received by the surface.
The flux received by the surface of a cupful of water from an ice cube an inch away would be much less than 315 W/m2.
You’ve never understood this. It’s a fundamental error and you are utterly blind to it.
“…fluxes ARRIVING a surface…”
Thank you for repeating your confusion.
An ice cubes emit 315 W/m2 FROM its surface.
But you have the same 315 W/m2 from an ice cube ARRIVING at the surface.
That’s why you don’t understand any of this.
barry, you’re obviously immature and uneducated. Consequently, there’s the very real possibility you won’t ever understand this. But, maybe you know of a responsible adult that can help you. If so, here’s some help:
There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.
When I say your cult is trying to boil water with ice cubes, it is to show how ridiculous your beliefs are.
It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface. It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface. But the surface would NOT then be emitting 630 W/m^2.
It is even possible to bring four 315 W/m^2 fluxes to the same surface. By your cult’s nonsense, that would result in 1260 W/m^2 being emitted and a temperature of 235F (113C, 386K), plenty enough to boil water.
If fluxes really added like that, you could indeed boil water with ice cubes. Even if the flux was reduced by the time it reached the surface, you simply bring in more ice!
I’ve wasted enough time on this nonsense. But, it was important to see you reduced to a ranting child, like Norman.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface.”
But not from an ice cube, unless the entire field of view of the receiving surface is filled with that ice cube. Otherwise a portion the 315 W/m2 emitted from the ice cube will go elsewhere.
“It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface.”
But not from a second ice cube, if the field of view of the receiving surface is already filled with the first ice cube. It’s physically impossible. As several of us have already explained to you many times.
And that is why no one here believes that the radiation from two ice cubes can sum to boil water.
Yeah, you’re STILL confused about the two issues.
Find a responsible adult to explain things to you.
Whatever you think is wrong with that description, Clint, it has been explained once again to you that the radiation from two ice cubes cannot boil water.
And it is for this very reason that you are a liar whenever you say that anyone here believes differently.
Even though I’ve just told you I don’t believe what you say I believe, you will be back tomorrow to lie about that.
You just can’t help it, woofer.
Bumbling Barry.
You wrote –
“Whatever you think is wrong with that description, Clint, it has been explained once again to you that the radiation from two ice cubes cannot boil water.”
I agree. How many ice cubes do you think are required to boil water?
To make it even easier, how many ice cubes would be required to raise the temperature of a drop of water by 0.000000001 C?
Come on, donkey, how hard can it be?
barry, you’re STILL confused about the two issues.
It’s YOUR cult that believes ice can boil water. Your cult also believes CO2 can warm Earth’s surface. At least they’re consistent — consistently WRONG.
Now I’ve got another one for you. Your cult must believe the distance between to towns is 40 mph. That comes from your not understanding units. That’s why this is so much fun.
Find a responsible adult to explain things to you.
(And, your childish insults and false accusations are like meritorious awards to me.)
Clint, you even lie to yourself:
Clint R:
“There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.”
Also Clint R:
“It’s been explained to you before. The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
So you DO believe the flux from an ice cube ARRIVING at a surface is 315 W/m2. Otherwise how could two of them achieve a combined ARRIVING flux of 630 W/m2 and boil water?
It’s not me who makes this faulty connection, Clint. It’s you, over and over.
Let’s have you speak for yourself again. Clint.
Clint R: “[Some science: An ice cube at freezing temperature emits about 315 W/m^2.]
Folkerts’ flawed “thinking’ would then mean that a third such flux would result in a total of 945 W/m^2. And, a fourth 315 W/m^2 would result in 1260 W/m^2. A flux of 1260 W/m^2 would result in a steady-state temperature of 386K (113C, 235F), well above the boiling point of water. So Folkerts is essentially saying that 4 ice cubes can boil water!”
Yes, you really do believe 315 W/m2 leaving an ice cube is the same 315 W/m2 ARRIVING at the surface from an ice cube. That’s why you multiply 315 W/m2 by 4 to derive the blackbody temp of the receiving surface and say that 4 ice cubes can boil water.
Let’s hear from you again, woofer.
Clint R:
“* An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2
* You believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface add to 630 W/m^2.
* If that surface has emissivity = 1, and is perfectly insulated on the back, it will be emitting 630 W/m^2 at equilibrium, you believe
* That means the surface is at 325 K, due to the two 315 W/m^2 irradiances
It follows then that three 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 945 W/m^2 and then, 359 K. And 4 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 1260 W/m^2, 386 K.
386 K = 113C = 235F, is plenty enough to boil water.
Yep, it’s confirmed – you really do believe that an ice cube emits 315 W/m2, and that this is exactly what ARRIVES from the ice cube to the surface.
You’ve even provided the math to show us what you think.
So, no, it is you who makes this connection, not me or anyone else. And we get to see it in your own words.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes barry, you’re still confused about the issues.
As I stated, that’s because you’re immature and uneducated. Keep proving me right. I can take it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571137
Yep, Barry, on-target exposure of the fraud that Clint perpetuates.
Child Nate stumbles in trying to support his cult brother.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Oh Clint, you can’t keep your story straight. I went and searched for previous quotes of yours that I hadn’t saved.
Clint R: “Folkerts once said two ice cubes, each emitting 315 W/m^2, could raise the temperature to 325k, because the fluxes would add!”
Yes, you really believe that the 315 W/m2 LEAVING the ice cube is the same 315 W/m2 ARRIVING.
As a bonus, Folkerts reply to that comment is familiar.
“Nope! Never said that. I can ignore most of what you write, but the outright lies/errors get annoying enough to respond to occasionally.”
Everyone sees it, Clint. Not just me.
Let’s quote you a bit more, shall we?
Clint R: “Folkerts, got a valid reference for your 315 W/m^2 fluxes raising a surface to 325 K?
That’s like two ice cubes heating something to 125F.”
125F = 325K, Clint. You really do believe that the flux leaving the ice cube is the exact same flux that arrives at the surface.
So when you state,
“There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.”
It is definitely YOU who have connected these ideas, over and over. Including upthread in the last 24 hours.
Reading back on those old posts was fun! You really can’t keep your story straight, Clint.
Folkerts: “A flux of 315 W/m^2 is emitted from an ice surface @ 273 K. That flux as measured when it hits some other receiving surface will be:
A) Still 315 W/m^2.
B) Any value between 0 W/m^2 315 W/m^2, depending on the geometry of the emitting and receiving surfaces.
Clint R: “C) Some value less than 315 W/m^2 depending on distance from source, according to the Inverse Square Law.”
But you keep saying the arriving flux from an ice cube is 315 W/m2.
And you haven’t even got the answer right. The ARRIVING flux is also calculated from geometry (view factor), which includes the area size of the surfaces.
The Reciprocity Rule
The view factor Fij is not equal to Fji unless the areas of the two surfaces are equal.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Perhaps you keep lying about what other people believe in order to mask your hopeless misunderstanding of this topic.
Vournas
Look at Flynnson’s and Clint R’s genial reply posts.
And if he doesn’t?
Blather, blather, blather again and again.
How boring.
Binny,
Do you spend a lot of time choosing to be bored?
To each his own, I suppose.
ChinaScience
China space authorities name Elon Musks SpaceX an unprecedented challenge
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3244086/china-space-authorities-name-elon-musks-spacex-unprecedented-challenge
The SpaceX boilerplate Starship booster did have all 33 engines going
and did boost the massive boilerplate second stage.
And we wonder when it will launch again, some say before end of year, others the first quarter of 2024.
But it seems launch cadence will increase in coming year, maybe 6 more launches before the summer of 2024??
And whatever number, it adds to Musk “plan” to launch 144 rockets next year. With quite a few Falcon Heavy rockets, and largest operational rocket if don’t count SLS {which is suppose to launch once ever 2 years}. Falcon Heavy is cheapest rocket in world, and Falcon 9 is second cheapest launch in the world. And whole idea of Starship is to become the biggest and cheapest rocket the world has ever seen.
Coming soon is Falcon Heavy launch of secret Military space plane/small shuttle. Which has been launched by the Falcon 9 in past, and people wonder why needs the Falcon Heavy {is going to GEO or what?}.
Oh, btw, GEO takes more delta-v than going around the Moon, so one could also guess the plane might go around the Moon.
–NET December 10 Falcon Heavy USSF 52
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida–
“A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch the USSF 52 mission for the U.S. Space Force. The Falcon Heavy will launch the experimental X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle on this mission. This will be the seventh flight of this spacecraft on a mission also known as OTV-7. This will be the first launch of an X-37B using a Falcon Heavy rocket. Delayed from October 2021 and 2nd Quarter 2022. Delayed from October 2022 and June 23, delayed from July 6 and Dec 7.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
So, some time in next 4 to 5 days.
Poor old Nate has great faith in predictability.
He would probably say “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!” If I said it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance.
If he took the time to look it up, he would find “Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum mechanics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance.” – Richard Feynman.
Feynman goes into detail much later on, but Nate cannot even accept the unpredictable nature of Nature, so there is not much point in overwhelming his tiny brain with reality at this time.
I best leave him alone. His head might otherwise explode.
barry…”UAH didnt have a flat trend from 1998 2012, until they changed their data. Check it out”.
***
Barry…enough of the mindless drivel. When UAH changed their range that amended the baseline, the entire set of anomalies went down. Therefore, any flat trend would remain flat.
I am not interested in the fiction you have created in your alarmist dementia at W4trees. You are a craven alarmist who will say or write anything to further your contemptuous propaganda.
Observing his reply to my interaction with Nate would be quite intriguing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570503
“Barry… enough of the mindless drivel. When UAH changed their range that amended the baseline, the entire set of anomalies went down.”
Not just that, the new version changed the data relative to each other.
So the trend 1979-2014 went from 0.14 C/decade in UAH5.6 to 0.11 C/decade in UAH6.0.
And the 1998-2012 trend changed from 0.05 C/decade to -0.07 C/decade.
woodfortrees takes the data direct from the UAH website every time it creates the graphs. Did you not know that?
It remains astounding that you still don’t know this stuff. After Roy posting about it when the v6.0 data came online, and after the years since that the trends between versions have been compared on this board many times.
Roy Spencer: “The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade”
That doesn’t come from a baseline change, it comes from a change in relative values of the data.
Roy Spencer: “Note that in the early part of the record, Version 6 has somewhat faster warming than in Version 5.6, but then the latter part of the record has reduced (or even eliminated) warming… This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite.”
Every new revision to UAH has resulted in changes in trends between the old and new version.
How can you not know this?
But the point is – if the fact of changes in data means that there is fudging going on, then that means UAH is ‘fudging’ the data.
That is the logical consequence of you daft reasoning.
barry,
You quoted Dr Spencer “The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade . . . “, which is completely meaningless as it stands. It tells you nothing about when (or even if) the trend will inflect.
Maybe you believe the trend will continue until the seas boil – around 6,500 years hence, if my arithmetic is correct. Not me, and not Dr Spencer, I dare say.
After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled, and the seas don’t appear to be boiling any more. What leads you to think that whatever process resulted in the Earth cooling, will stop, reverse, and cause the Earth to get hotter? A momentary mental aberration, perhaps?
This habit of following me into every thread is starting to get creepy, Swenson. Could do scratch your itch with someone else, please?
barry, it will only get worse for you.
You can’t hide from reality. It will get you every time.
Called anyone a “lying dog” yet today?
bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“This habit of following me into every thread is starting to get creepy, Swenson. Could do scratch your itch with someone else, please?.”
You can run but you can’t hide.
Wow. You are not just a creep, you’re proud of it.
If you say so, barry, if you say so.
What mental aberration lead you to believe that anyone values your bizarre opinion?
Mike Flynn,
The answer to your silly question is simple –
Because people tell Barry that they care his opinions.
I’m sorry this never happens to you.
barry
Robertson’s, Flynnson’s and tr0ll Clint R’s endlessly repeated stûpid nonsense becomes more and more boring.
They never stop discrediting and denigrating all what they dislike on this blog: exactly because they all are unable to scientifically contradict what they dislike.
No wonder when you read Flynnson’s request for ‘total freedom of speech’.
None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Curry’s Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog.
Binny,
What’s your point?
Flynnson
Think! It could be a completely new, really amazing experience for you.
Binny,
So you have no point, is that it?
Very clever – nobody can contradict what you don’t say, can they?
Typical SkyDragon cultist.
Bindi will learn some science about the time gb lands on Mars!
I won’t hold my breath….
I repeat, for those who always write before thinking:
” None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Currys Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog. “
Is Curry involved in science? Does she know any physics or thermodynamics?
Her CV indicates she has a degree in geography.
Of course, that’s more science than you could understand….
Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this –
What’s the latest book Judy wrote, besides her ebook?
Binny,
You wrote –
“None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Currys Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog.”
I haven’t noticed Dr Spencer complaining about disruption. Are you commenting on his behalf, or just venturing your opinion?
Isn’t that the same sort of nonsense you used to spout about Wattsupwiththst?
How did that work out for you?
I understand why you dont want to address the non-existent GHE. You would look even sillier.
Carry on whining.
“Her CV indicates she has a degree in geography.”
Yeah, but what has she done lately?
You might not want to judge someone with a PhD on what their undergraduate degree was.
Also you might want to read one of her over 100 published papers to see if she know her shit or not.
And then, she had a chair, but gave it up.
With a geography degree, she likely knows you can’t measure distances in units of speed. That puts her decades ahead of your cult, bob.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
https://www.amazon.ca/Thermodynamics-Kinetics-Microphysics-Professor-Khvorostyanov/dp/1107016037
Which names do you see on this cover?
“With a geography degree, she likely knows you cant measure distances in units of speed. That puts her decades ahead of your cult, bob.”
At the speed of light, the Earth is 8 minutes away from the Sun.
Barry…
… is of course once more 100% right.
Neither ignoramus Roberson let alone his friends in denîal know anything about the difference between
– UAH’s transition from revision 5.6 to revision 6.0 in April 2015;
– UAH6.0’s reference period transition from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 in January 2021.
Graph for rev. 5.6 versus rev. 6.0:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.14/plot/uah6/trend/offset:0.14/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/trend
Trend 5.6 till mid 2017: 0.16 C / decade
Trend 6.0 till mid 2017: 0.13 C / decade
*
And despite not having a bit of a clue of what barry told about, the brazenly insulting ignoramus Robertson posts:
” I am not interested in the fiction you have created in your alarmist dementia at W4trees. You are a craven alarmist who will say or write anything to further your contemptuous propaganda. ”
*
It is evident that Robertson doesn’t know that prior to 2015, UAH had a quite different vision of the lower troposphere than nowadays.
One hardly could behave more stupîd.
*
Let us recall that solely the transition from 1981-2010 10 1991-2020 has shown an increase of 0.14 C in the absolute data, what of course has let the anomalies move down by the same amount.
**
By the way, it’s interesting to see how Mr. Walter R. Hogle peu à peu develops into Robertson’s butt-kisser :–)
lmao ok
Thats funny coming from you.
Cooling Begins In 2030
https://notrickszone.com/2023/12/06/leading-russian-polar-scientist-cooling-begins-in-2030-climate-crisis-a-globalist-scam/
I hope not but there is good, similar evidence from Zharhova we must heed. Due to this warming propaganda we may miss the opportunity to prepare for the opposite and we’ll be caught in a very difficult situation.
Last time this happened, there were crop failures extending down to Florida and Texas. People began to starve. Same in the Highlands of Scotland in the 1790s.
There will definitely be no one sailing through the NW Passage and people who built along glacier pathways will be wiped out. Sea levels will drop but the irony is that so will CO2 levels and the alarmist ijits will take credit for it while they deny the cooling. NOAA will adjust whatever they need to adjust to show a warming.
Some “top polar scientist” we got there:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrey-Fedotov-2
Willard
No one of the pseudo-skep~tical geniuses discrediting all the time the climate scientists they dislike would ever put Fedotov’s climate science qualification in question.
Starting with (No?)TricksZone chief poster Gosselin and all the people who credulously follow his persistent garbage.
I just found this article posted by the Moscow Times (MT):
Climate Skeptics Muddy Russians’ Understanding of Warming Planet
Oct. 18, 2023
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/18/russias-climate-skeptics-muddy-public-understanding-of-warming-planet-a82752
*
Of course, what is interesting is not whether the MT agrees with the AGW or not, but rather the connection between Russian climate skeptics and the leading thinkers of the Soviet era.
Well done.
Some dimwit attacking the man, rather than the facts.
Even an inconsequential pseudo-philosopher like your namesake, Willard Quine, has probably heard of the term “argumentum ad hominem”, a device used by dummies like you to wriggle out of facing reality!
You bury yourself in ordure – yet again.
Mike Flynn, whose namesake is not far from being a traitor,
Don’t know what’s an ad hominem, do you?
Care to read the Pierre’s title again?
Cheers?
Cheers!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Care to read the Pierres title again?” What are you babbling about? What’s a Pierre in this context?
You take obscurity to a new low.
Morgon Mike,
What mirror?
Where?
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Care to read the Pierres title again?” What are you babbling about? Whats a Pierre in this context?
You take obscurity to a new low.
What mirror, Mike?
Where?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
christos…”Solar flux cannot be averaged, because solar flux interacts with spherical surface, and not with the flat disk”.
***
I think the problem may be more complex. The solar flux at TOA is claimed to be 1300+ w/m^2. I don’t know where that figure comes from but if it is calculated based on the estimated solar surface temperature of about 5000C, it could be wrong.
The Sun’s temperatures ranges from 1 million C near the core to 5000C near the surface. That means nearly 1 million C needs to be dissipated between the core and the surface, and that is highly unlikely given the nature of super-heated plasma.
A good deal of modern science is still based on old thought processes that have gone unchallenged for a century. Even though Bohr fundamentally changed the way we look at the origins of electromagnetic energy, much of modern climate change theory is still based on older beliefs dating to well before Bohr.
The current notions we have about the Sun date back to the 19th century and are based on Kircheoff’s 1850 claim about black body theory, which was intended for bodies in thermal equilibrium only. Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/FsnLTjM/archive-1-image.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Next time a Sky Dragon crank asks –
“Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?”
remind that crank of Pictet’s experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet%27s_experiment
Then watch them bray again.
We already know you are clueless about the science, silly willy.
Now find something else you don’t understand.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Have you finally distinguished Science from Truth?
Riddle me this, Willard,
Are you congenitally unable to accept reality, or is this a result of your SkyDragon cult involvement?
Riddle me this, Mike Flynn –
Haven’t you read anything by my avatar?
Riddle me this, ridiculous Willard, what are you babbling about?
Who (or what) is your avatar?
If I don’t know to whom you are referring, how would I know whether I have read anything they may have written?
You can be really silly, Willard. Would that make you a silly billy, or a silly Willy?
Riddle me this, Mike Flynn –
Don’t you know who my avatar is?
Riddle me this, ridiculous Willard, what are you babbling about?
Who (or what) is your avatar?
If I dont know to whom you are referring, how would I know whether I have read anything they may have written?
You can be really silly, Willard. Would that make you a silly billy, or a silly Willy?
Who?
What?
How?
You sure like to bray, Mike!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? That would be right.
There are many otherwise intelligent people who believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object from the radiative flux falling in it!
Must be SkyDragon cultists to believe such nonsense, eh?
Why do you bother appealing to authorities who support me, rather than you –
“Addition of a very cold object adds an effective heat sink versus a room temperature object which would not, in the net, cool or warm a thermometer in the other focus.” – from your reference!
No, you cannot add fluxes from colder objects to heat warmer objects.
Failed again, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Have you ever tried to measure the temperature of a mirror?
No?
Not a handyman, are you?
How about an IR thermometer – ever tried one?
How would you proceed to measure the temperature of a mirror?
Any idea?
None at all?
Can’t even think of measuring it from behind?
Not a very serious chap, are you?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again) –
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies – like you.
Mor-on Mike,
You don’t know who’s Pierre?
You haven’t read the exchange, have you?
Do continue, Mor-on Mike!
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have Alzheimer?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
You don’t know who’s Pierre.
You unsurprisingly don’t know anything about flux.
What are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
It’s possible to measure the temperature of a mirror.
Cheers.
Willtard discovered cold rays
Eboy discovers ankle-biting.
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn does not rediscover ankle-biting.
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you want to say?
Now is the time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
AccuWeather
From gusty winds to dangerous thunderstorms and even snow, a massive storm will affect 180 million people in the eastern half of the US this weekend.
https://i.ibb.co/7K3xvmz/406468488-740633031254679-3094610946423865731-n.jpg
It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing). This would result in a greatly increased albedo (>0.8) exacerbating the situation further.
–
I’ll try to calculate Earth’s Effective temperature with albedo
a =08
So = 1362 W/m
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴
ε =1
Te = [(1-α)S/(4εσ)]∕ ⁴
Te = [(1-0,8)1362/(4εσ)]∕ ⁴ = [0,2*1362 /4εσ]∕ ⁴ =
Te = (1.201.058.201)∕ ⁴ = 186K or -87 C
–
This Earth’s Te =186K or -87 C ( a uniform surface blackbody temperature)
1362 W/m *0,2 /4 = 68,1 W/m (a uniform surface blackbody IR EM energy emission )
–
It is a paradox.
Clearly there is something very wrong here. A real body
at -87 C never emits 68,1 W/m, because it doesn’t happen.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing).”
Earth without an atmosphere would be like Mars with more sunlight reaching surface.
The Moon and Mars has no “meaningful” or “significant” air temperature.
The ground surface temperature on Mars has been measured at 20 C. And within 1 meter air above ground surface “air temperature” decreases a lot. It’s not like Earth.
Earth with it’s atmosphere {and everything] is presently cold because it’s in an Ice Age. And it’s cold because the polar regions are cold. And it gets colder, because the polar regions can get even colder.
So coldest Earth has been was about 20,000 years ago with ice sheets going down to New York. The polar regions and near the polar regions were cold.
The Tropics was about same as our current Tropics.
So going back to Mars, in polar region in winter it snows a lot of atmospheric CO2 {and ice cap, grows- and it will shrink in summer]. One could count the falling snow as being cold- though one could also count it as added insulation- as roof doesn’t need any air below it in contact with it.
So Earth without atmosphere will have it’s polar regions get cold. Earth with atmosphere has atmosphere warming it, when there is no sunlight reaching it.
But what mainly warms the polar region when not in Ice Age, is the warmer ocean. Our cold ocean only warms it a bit and air could be warm it more than Ocean. But outside polar region, mostly the ocean.
Vournas …
” It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C… ”
… and gbaikie
” Earth without an atmosphere would be like Mars with more sunlight reaching surface. ”
*
You are both wrong.
The iceball looking Earth with all of the water vapor having precipitated down to surface (and, in the following, CO2 becoming less and less present in the atmosphere too) still has 78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar which all do not precipitate at all.
*
While the albedo of fresh snow is between 0.4 and 0.85, that of ice is between 0.3 and 0.4:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Albedo-e_hg.svg/800px-Albedo-e_hg.svg.png
and that of very old ice is (said to be) 0.3.
Thus, surprisingly, the albedo of an iceball Earth is similar to the current global albedo average (0.31):
https://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/background-ice
*
Finally, Vournas’ equations above are 100% incomprehensible.
Bindi doesn’t know that “without atmosphere” means without atmosphere.
Blinny is a fish.
I thought he was a sauerkraut.
A bored sauerkraut at that.
I repeat for the ignoramuses:
” The iceball looking Earth with all of the water vapor having precipitated down to surface (and, in the following, CO2 becoming less and less present in the atmosphere too) still has 78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar which all do not precipitate at all. ”
People like Clint R really believe that an atmosphere with ‘78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar’ is the same as ‘no atmosphere’.
Oh Noes.
Bindi, “without atmosphere” means “no atmosphere”, which means no N2 or O2.
I predict you STILL won’t understand.
Sorry, trôll Clint R
You are the one who didn’t understand my objection to Vournas’ post.
You should read comments sequences with more attention, instead of simply scanning them for presence of what you dislike resp. absence of what you expect.
Bindi, I sure hope you’re enjoying your meltdown as much as I am.
Don’t go away like several of the other incompetent cult children have. Pretty soon we won’t know what cult children look like….
Binny,
You wrote –
“You are both wrong.”
Are you saying that in the absence of an atmosphere the water on the Earth would be frozen, or not?
Come on, take a punt – no atmosphere – just like the Moon or not? Maximum temperature around 125 C?
Go on, say something definite for a change.
tim s…”Thermal efficiency requires that the heat of the combustion products be recovered. The work done by an engine is related directly to heat extracted from the gases (#1 law).
Here is the fun part. That actually IS in the #2 law that you folks get all excited about! It is accomplished by using a long stroke and slow rpm to extract as much temperature from the gases as possible”.
***
Not following your logic here, Tim. The 1st law relates external work and heat with internal work and heat, the latter known collectively as internal energy. Clausius wanted to specify internal work and heat as such but succumbed to the stoopidity of Lord Kelvin, aka Thompson, who secretly despised Clausius, no doubt, out of professional jealousy. In other words, Thompson was not as smart as Clausius, who in his spare time, invented the kinetic gas theory as well.
Work done by an engine is related to the gas pressure produced by the explosion of a compressed gas with heat being a wasted byproduct of the explosion. That heat has useful purposes, like heating the water that circulates through the car’s internal heater, but how can recovering the heat improve the efficiency of the engine?
Efficiency is basically the power you put in versus the power you get out. The power in factor has to be in the exploding air/gas mixture when ignited and the power out is how much of that power exists, after detonation, can be transferred to the crankshaft via the pistons.
This is far more complex than a simply application of the 1st law. The engine has to do work on the gas to compress it in the cylinder, and if you have worn rings and valves, they will leak off some of that pressure, reducing the power in the piston stroke after detonation. So let’s just focus on the process after compression when the spark plug ignites the mixture.
This actually become a reversal of the 1st law since internal energy created by the explosion is now doing work and producing heat. In this case, the heat is a byproduct and not really related. It’s a reversal in the sense that we normally think of the 1st law in the sense of heat producing work and vice versa. In this case, the internal energy is producing work and heat at the expense of the internal energy, which is lowered drastically.
That’s why engines have flywheels, which maintain the momentum created by the exploding gases. In a 4-stroke engine, the power stroke from the exploding gasoline is only one stroke. The next stroke clears exhaust from the cylinder and the next compresses fresh gas/air mixture, then the following stroke is another power stroke.
I simply don’t get the fun part, as you put it. The 2nd law has nothing to do with that. It tells us merely that the heat of the explosion must move from hot to cold, which it does. It enters the cylinder walls, mainly where it is cooled by circulating water from the water pump.
How can recovering that heat possibly affect a process that has already passed? Getting rid of the heat as efficiently as possible has more impact since machines tend to run more efficiently at lower temperatures.
Just for the curious – Mercedes F1 PR –
“An overall efficiency of around 50 percent can be achieved by the Power Units internal combustion engine due to its high thermal efficiency. Half of the chemical energy introduced into the system is finally converted into torque at the crankshaft. The efficiency of conventional combustion engines is less than 40 percent.”
1.6 L, v6, 15,000 rpm, >1000 bhp
Power. Efficiency. Just what I need to get to the supermarket and beat the crowds!
Interesting. DO they say how the increased efficiency is gained?
An electric motor, which has an efficiency in the 90 percentile range is hampered by the lack of a battery that can run it for no more than a few hours before recharge is required. That lack of ability increases as temperatures drop to the point where the chemical action in the battery can no longer produce a viable charge.
I may be interpreting Tim S incorrectly, but he seems to be suggesting that heat produced by motors can be recycled to make them more efficient. That parallels the reasoning that heat in the atmosphere can be recycled by GHGs to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy.
Gordon,
One way of utilising exhaust heat that would otherwise be lost to the system is to drive a turbocharger, and design the engine to take advantage of it.
No free lunch, and a lot of trade-offs involved. Another system involves using a small turbo generator spinning up 125,000 RPM to charge a battery to keep the turbo spinning when off throttle to avoid turbo lag, and so on. Engineering marvels.
All in all, resulting in using the least fuel to create the most output. Thermal efficiency. Theres plenty of documention, with great numbers of acronyms. Good luck figuring them all out!
A little googling reveals an answer. They recover energy during braking and use it later for accelerating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system
You need to also look at charging efficiency as batteries age.
Batteries age relatively fast compared to a ICE.
As they age charging time increases and battery capacity decreases. And old battery creates more resistance that generate more heat loss over longer charge cycles.
”According to a study conducted by the US Department of Energy, electric vehicle batteries can lose up to 20% of their capacity after just 3 years of use. Furthermore, a report by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that electric vehicle owners who charge their cars to 100% capacity every time have a battery pack that lasts, on average, two years less than those who only charge to 80% capacity.”
Avoid charging your battery to 100% capacity every time try to keep the battery charge at around 80%.
Avoid letting your battery go below 20% capacity, as this can also damage the battery.
Avoid exposing your electric vehicle to extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
Some recommend depletion to only 30%
so actually it only wise to use only 50% of the battery capacity, a big range reducer to maximize the electrical efficiency over time.
Battery depreciation for somebody driving 15,000 miles/year and a $15,000 battery that lasts 10 years works out to about $40 per full charge in battery depreciation.
so that adds 10cents per mile in fuel costs for 400 miles per full charge.
Since you can easily buy a ICE car that gets 32 mpg or 12.5 gallons.
National gas price average per AAA $3.185 or about $40 per 400 miles or $0.10 per mile.
So essentially the premium you pay for an EV is every dime you pay for electricity to keep it charged.
Perhaps you save 5 to 20% on oil changes for the ICE depending upon who does them so its probably not all that bad. But I don’t know what kind of weird costs you might run into owning an EV.
Gordon, I can explain your confusion with the Kinetic theory of gases. The pressure is pushing on the piston and doing the work. In the process, kinetic energy of the gas is delivered to the piston. The piston then does work by moving the crank shaft.
Let’s back up. What is kinetic energy in a gas? It is temperature. The sonic velocity of a gas is a function of temperature. As the gas does work, it gives up kinetic energy and therefore loses temperature. For any given combustion process, the efficiency is gained when the most heat (kinetic energy) is removed from the gas.
Another factor involves the fuel stoichiometry. Hydrogen is the only fuel that reduces the molecular number when it burns. One mole of oxygen and two moles of hydrogen yields two moles of water. Three moles of reactant yields two moles of product. For methane it is CH4 + 2.5 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O 2.5 yields 3.
One of the advantages of diesel fuel is that the high molecular weight produces a large number of gases. C20H42 + 30.5 O2 -> 20 CO2 + 21 H2O 31.5 reactants yields 41 products.
I screwed that up:
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Three moles yield three moles. No change.
Earlier, a somewhat confused barry wrote –
“But not from an ice cube, unless the entire field of view of the receiving surface is filled with that ice cube. Otherwise a portion the 315 W/m2 emitted from the ice cube will go elsewhere.”, apparently trying to assert that a colder body can raise the temperature of a warmer (as GHE believers think a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a warmer surface).
Well, SkyDragon cultists love “thought experiments” and “scenarios”, so I’ll help bumbling barry out.
First, a drop of water totally surrounded by ice will not get hotter. End of “field of view” distraction.
A block of ice completely submerged in water will not raise the temperature at all. All the radiation of the ice is impinging on the water.
Now, neither barry, nor any of his bumbling compadres can hazard a guess as to where the photons emitted by the ice go – in either case. That’s because they suffer from a sever lack of knowledge.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. The surface even cools each night, during a solar eclipse, when a cloud passes overhead, etc.
“First, a drop of water totally surrounded by ice will not get hotter. End of field of view distraction.”
No, that is just the START of field of view discussion.
“It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface. It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface.”
But that is NOT possible using ice as the source. A “drop of water totally surrounded by ice” can get 315 W/m^2 when “totally surrounded.” But you can’t “totally surround” the drop twice to get 630 W/m^2.
You can only get a ‘second’ 315 W/m^2 if the radiation comes from a hotter surface.
“But the surface would NOT then be emitting 630 W/m^2.”
This brings your confusion into focus.
Either:
A) you have two hotter sources that can each independently provide 315 W/m^2 and the drop of water will indeed radiate 630 W/m^2 when steadystate is reached. (in which case you are not talking about ice)
b) you get 315 W/m^2 from ice and the drop will radiate 315 W/m^2 (in which case you are not talking about 630 W/m^2).
You can’t have it both ways. You cant have radiation from ice AND have 630 W/m^2 reaching the drop.
Tim Folkerts:
”You can only get a second 315 W/m^2 if the radiation comes from a hotter surface.”
It must be come to Jesus week.
The question for the atmosphere is without something cooling its upper surface that isn’t as proficient as cooling its bottom surface simultaneously (i.e. no GHGs) the atmosphere would warm uniformly to the same temperature as the surface via convection and conduction.
And since it can’t cool at the top, and convection causes hot air to rise, and conduction though very slow will transport heat up entirely by collisions and diffusion around the same rate it distributes CO2 into the atmosphere.
How exactly is the 3rd grader radiation model going to heat up the atmosphere sufficiently to heat up the surface?
Folkerts appears to be babbling incoherently, to himself.
When it comes to meltdowns, it’s each to his own I guess.
“It must be come to Jesus week.”
This is exactly what I have been saying for years. (And what physics texts teach). But I am glad you agree.
“The question for the atmosphere is without something cooling its upper surface that isnt as proficient as cooling its bottom surface simultaneously (i.e. no GHGs) the atmosphere would warm uniformly to the same temperature as the surface via convection and conduction.”
This is (basically) true but incomplete. Without GHGs the surface would be ~ 255 K on average (simple radiation energy balance). So yes, the atmosphere and surface would be the same (or at least similar) temperatures. But that temperature would be ~ 255 K, not ~ 288 K.
Now Folkerts is running away from his “fluxes simply add” nonsense.
But he still holds on to his cult’s “255 K” nonsense.
One baby step at a time….
“Now Folkerts is running away from his “fluxes simply add” nonsense.”
Not running away from anything. If you understand it, it is simple. Fluxes arriving at a surface do simply add. If 10 sources each supply 100 W/m^2 to a surface, then together they supply 1000 W/m^2.
Folkerts that depends upon no overlap which in lighting design is essentially impossible to achieve.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lighting-design-lumen-method-examples-hasan-tariq
Tim,
You are endeavouring to substitute fluxes for temperatures, as silly Skydragon cultists do on a regular basis. All part of the scam.
If you have 1000 100W/m2 sources from ice, you cannot heat even a microgram of water!
Start whining about how you couldn’t do it with ice, but then imply that you could with something hotter! IR is light, regardless of frequency.
Concentrate the 100 W from 1m2 of ice into 1 mm2. No, it’s not impossible – suitable parabolic mirrors and lenses are made to focus light of all frequencies. Now you have 100 W concentrated into a millionth of a square meter – an energy flux of what, 100,000,000 W/m2?
Still cant heat any water at all! Correct my mental arithmetic if you like, but don’t deny that light can be concentrated! Any child starting a fire with a hand lens will prove you wrong.
Keep blowing your own horn, Tim. Someone might value your opinion, but at the moment it’s certainly not me!
No Folkerts, you’re running away from your own nonsense. Now you’re only referring to a mathematical addition. You no longer claim 1000 W/m^2 will be emitted by the surface.
I’m on to your tricks.
Looks like Gill forgot step 4 of his cite:
Fixtures seem to add.
“If you have 1000 100W/m2 sources from ice, you cannot heat even a microgram of water!”
And there is the crux of all the misunderstandings! This is true but it is NOT what I was claiming.
Flux FROM an EMITTING surface is different from flux TO a RECEIVING surface. That bears repeating since people fail to grasp this simple point. “To” and “from” are two completely different concepts.
1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
They could provide 1 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 10 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 99 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 100 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
This limit is due to geometry. If your EMITTING sources are all 100 W/m^2 e, then the most they can provide any RECEIVING surface is 100 W/m^2
On a completely different note, 1000 fluxes of 100 W/m^2 arriving AT a RECEIVING surface do add. So for example you could have 1000 small sources at 1150 K that are EMITTING 100,000 W/m^2. At sufficient distance, the inverse square law could reduce that to 100 W/m^2 arriving AT a RECEIVING surface. By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.
So yes, 1000 fluxes of 100 W/m^2 from 1050 K surfaces all arriving at a receiving surface DO and can warm drop of water above 0 C.
Tim,
I see. So you can’t add fluxes from 270 K ice, but you can add fluxes from 1050 K objects.
You wrote – “1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.”
But then wrote “By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
So 270 K fluxes don’t add, but 1150 K fluxes do? What’s the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?
Not to worry Tim, you then demonstrate your vast knowledge (ho ho) of physics by coming to the not-so-astonishing conclusion that yes, a temperature source of 1050 K can warm a drop of water!
Maybe you could clarify what you are claiming – if it that the radiation from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter, no matter how much of it there is, then I agree.
If you are claiming that you can raise water from 0 C to a higher temperature by exposing it to an iron bar heated to glowing orange heat, I would also agree.
If, however, you are claiming that radiation from a colder atmosphere (no matter how much there is) can raise the temperature of a hotter surface, then you are obviously off with fairies.
Mike Flynn,
By chance you clarify –
“Not to worry”
For one second I was worrying that you had no idea what you were talking about once again!
Carry on.
Swenson,
I see. So you cant read.
All fluxes ARRIVING at (and getting absorbed by) a surface add. It doesn’t matter if the sources are 270 K or 6000 K or lasers or LED lightbulbs. If 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 270 K source and gets absorbed from a 1000 K source and 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 3000 K source, you add them all to get 300 W/m^2.
Or if 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 270 K source and gets absorbed from a 2nd 270 K source and gets absorbed from 3rd 270 K source, you add them all to get 300 W/m^2.
The problem is not that you cannot add the fluxes. The problem is geometry. There simply is not room to place 10 sources @ 270 K that can all supply 100 W/m^2 to a surface.
This is really not that difficult.
Tim,
Here’s what you wrote –
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by “carefully arranging” 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?
Rubbish. You want to be able to measure temperatures using W/m2, like other climate clowns pretend they can.
If you are skipping around claiming that surrounding the Earth with a thin, cool, gaseous sphere will make it hotter, just say so. I’ll laugh all the more.
Off you go.
“Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by carefully arranging 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?”
You still can’t read. Come back when you have digested the implications of “to” and “from”. The implications of “emitting” and “receiving”.
The fact that you left these ideas out when you paraphrased above suggests you have no clue about the actual issue here.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Come back when you have digested the implications of “to” and “from”. The implications of “emitting” and “receiving”.
No Tim. No “implications”. Here’s what you wrote –
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
I suppose you are going to try to weasel out by saying that “emitting surfaces” are different to “sources”, depending on temperature?
OK, you want to play your “silly semantic games”, go ahead.
The only inference anyone sensible is likely to draw, is that you are a clueless SkyDragon cultist, either incompetent at expressing your ideas, or intentionally doing so, trying to perpetuate a fraudulent illusion.
Come on, Tim, try to describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. You can’t or won’t – either a fool or a fraud.
Carry on.
It is really incredible how people fail to grasp this.
“Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by ‘carefully arranging’ 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?”
This is what Folkerts said.
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface…
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
How did you figure that the 1150 K sources were emitting at 100 W/m2? Could you explain that?
Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.
Getting to his conclusion runs roughshod over science. Yes there are special materials that won’t follow Stefan Boltzmann with diffused solar radiation but there is no science that suggests that 255K is the result of a Goldilocks Zone planet with a .3 albedo and that puts all the rest of his theories at risk as the amount of warming from the doubling of CO2 is at least in part built on that fiction.
Not to speak of course the theory of how a few watts of CO2 controls all the water vapor in the atmosphere with a 1370w/m2 that fluctuates between that and zero watts doesn’t put any water vapor in the atmosphere. How gullible can people be?
then when they argue the point they immediately point to a snowball earth completely ignoring the sublimation of water vapor directly from ice. And Tim who should know better is in here ignoring all that and misinforming the public and probably misinforming the kids he teaches if he brings any of this at all up in his classroom.
“Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.
Getting to his conclusion runs roughshod over science.”
And common sense.
Most people know from the sensory experience of their bare feet, that a low albedo surface, like asphalt, gets hotter in sunshine, than a higher albedo surface like fresh concrete.
Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase. After the asphalt hits its maximum temperature the low albedo surface is still warming. Then when cooling the low albedo surface cools more slowly and you have the opposite effect.
Nate, you knucklehead,
Place samples of whatever you like with whatever albedo you like in an environment of constant temperature.
Wait for thermal equilibrium. All the objects and the environment will be at the same temperature, emitting precisely the same frequency photons. I didn’t say at the same intensity, of course. Some people leap to that conclusion, but they are wrong.
Bill was right, you were wrong. Suck it up.
Bill says: “Then when cooling the low albedo surface cools more slowly and you have the opposite effect.”
Almost! It is true that emissivity controls both how well a material absorbs radiation and how well it emits radiation; And what you say would be true if the surface was heated with thermal IR.
The problem is that emission and absor.p.tion depend on wavelength. In particular, visible light and thermal IR can have very different properties. Black paint and white pant emit thermal IR almost identically, but absorb visible light very differently. Black painted surfaces will have higher maximum and higher average temperatures than similar white painted surfaces.
Tim,
Well, that was much ado about nothing, wasn’t it?
Do you realise how ignorant you appear when you wrote “And what you say would be true if the surface was heated with thermal IR.”
Appealing to your own abysmal authority?
Still claiming that a GHE exists, and that you are prepared to be specific about what its effects are?
Fat chance. All mouth and no trousers, that’s you.
“Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase. ”
I think people know what I am talking about, at the peak heat of a sunny day, their feet can tell them the albedo of the surface.
Not sure why you dont get, Bill.
“Wait for thermal equilibrium. All the objects and the environment will be at the same temperature”
And Swenson apparently doesnt get out much. Obviously he never got into a car sitting in the sun in summer.
Nate says:
Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase.
I think people know what I am talking about, at the peak heat of a sunny day, their feet can tell them the albedo of the surface.
Not sure why you dont get, Bill.
——————-
So essentially is your argument about albedo is that the atmosphere objects switch from black during the day to white at night? So that the mean is different over 24 hours? I think that argument is just about as contradictory as your argument that involves objects under going multiple motions simultaneously that have an object going in multiple directions at one time.
“So essentially is your argument about albedo is…”
Again you shamelessly invent an argument for me that I have not made!
I was just making fun of your thoughts on how black vs white would affect the GHE.
Black warms faster and cools faster. White warms slower and cools slower.
How does that affect the mean temperature? Please none of your usual declarations Nate, just some reliable sources.
“Black warms faster and cools faster. ”
Warms faster and reaches a higher temperature. My feet don’t lie.
Cools faster? Why?
A black object does not need to have a higher IR emissivity than a white object.
But it does always.
Evidence?
Of course not.
White paint has high IR emissivity.
In any case, you neglect convection which doesnt care about color.
“There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI); for example, dark surfaces absorb significantly more solar radiation, which causes urban concentrations of roads and buildings to heat more than suburban and rural areas during the day;[2] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Bill you are just being a contrarian without a good cause.
Well since it really requires specifically engineered paints to target emissions through atmospheric window and target reflective surfaces that favor SW over LW, that has very little to do with UHI.
It almost certainly is the lack of transpiration of surfaces in cities. An effect that has very little effect on the climate but a big effect on how the surface temperature record is put together.
Green vegetation has a very high ability to absorb light like the cities but the cities lack the evaporative cooling at virtually every level right on down to artificial turf and low water use vegetation that is now being mandated in many cities which adds in another element not entirely connected to population as it affects existing population. Actually the element that removes the last of the highly transpiring plant life in cities. Plus you have citations being issued for washing your car of letting water spray on the roadway or sidewalks.
”2.6 megajoules of energy to evaporate 1 kilogram of water at room temperature, which translates to around 8.7 kilowatts over 5 minutes.”
For a well tended lawn that equates to 27megajoules of cooling per square meter of lawn per day. Its just a fact that over the past 5 decades lawns in new housing developments have been getting smaller and smaller and with water shortages they plan on having few lawns.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-energy-is-needed-to-evaporate-1-liter-of-water-in-5-minutes.399908/
That brings up another point. They measure ocean SSTs with water drawn below the surface. The actual evaporating surface of the ocean has a sharp cooling gradient the steepness of is dependent upon surface turbulence.
The source makes clear that:
“There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI); for example, dark surfaces absorb significantly more solar radiation, which causes urban concentrations of roads and buildings to heat more than suburban and rural areas during the day;[2]”
The reality here is that albedo is a key factor in everybody’s calculation of the temperature of planets, even ones without an atmosphere.
This position you have taken, that albedo doesnt matter wins the stoopidity prize!
But it illustrates your MO: Take a contrarian position and than endlessly argue for it, no matter how ridiculous it is.
No I have only objected to those that treat albedo as 100% at reducing temperature and and turn around when it suits them and treats surfaces with albedos as blackbodies. . . as Trenberth et al do in their various radiation budgets.
Fact is mean global albedo by various reanalyzes varies by 20w/m2, yet you say that reanalyzes convinced you that .9w/m2 imbalance of Trenberth et al is a fact.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
“Fact is mean global albedo by various reanalyzes varies by 20w/m2”
No it isn’t a fact. Quote your source!
“No I have only objected to those that treat albedo as 100% at reducing temperature”
FALSE
Your bizarre claim was:
“Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.”
You continue to post erratically.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Without GHGs the surface would be ~ 255 K on average (simple radiation energy balance).”
Complete nonsense. You are not actually suggesting that you can determine the temperature of something by the amount of radiative flux falling upon it, are you?
You are quite mad, if so.
When you say “simple radiation energy balance”, are you off with the fairies? Denying that the surface of the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years? What “balance” are you babbling about?
Quite apart from that, you ignore – “First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.” – Richard Feynman, and I agree.
So, your silly “energy balance” needs to specify what “system” you are referring to. Not the Earth, obviously, because the Sun puts energy in. Not the Solar System, because most of the energy from the Sun flees the solar system, never to be seen again.
You are obviously talking about the Tim Folkerts Fantasy System, which exists only in your imagination.
Tut, tut, Tim. Address reality, and I’ll readily change my views if you give me reason based on facts.
Carry on with the fantasy.
“Complete nonsense. You are not actually suggesting that you can determine the temperature of something by the amount of radiative flux falling upon it, are you?”
As addressed in another post, if
1) you know the radiative flux falling on an object AND
2) you know the emissivity of the object AND
3) there are no other losses from conduction or convection AND
4) there are no other sources AND
5) there has been sufficient time to approach steady-state
then you can indeed make a pretty good determination of the temperature. The flux falling on the object will be the flux emitted, and emitted flux is a function of the object’s temperature.
This would be pretty accurate for a rock on the moon for example. The sunlight is known and changes slowly; there is no atmosphere.
As for your Feynman quote, you seem to have missed an important part of that chapter. Feynman was making an analogy between energy and wooden blocks. When the room is closed, the number of blocks remains constant. He even discussed adding blocks (a friend come to visit) or removing blocks (thrown out the window).
Similarly for energy, in a closed system energy remains constant. If we want to verify conservation of energy, we have to be careful to ACCOUNT FOR energy added or removed. The simple case for beginners that Feynman was discussing was that no energy was removed or added.
Read the whole chapter. Read other sources that are not an introduction for beginning students.
Finally, “energy balance” refers to the degree of energy balance between some system and its surroundings. As in:
When there is perfect balance, energy within the system remains constant. In particular, thermal energy remains constant; temperature remains constant.
When there is NOT perfect balance, energy in the system changes; temperature changes. For the earth as a whole, the degree of balance is quite good. Over the course of a year, the imbalance is typically within 1 W/m^2 (out of ~ 240 W/m^2 in and ~ 240 W/m^2 out).
**********************************
As for ‘4.5 billion years’, yes the average global imbalance has been outward, and the earth has on average cooled. T
his does NOT mean that every every individual second, day or year the balance in outward. Some individual seconds, days or years the balance can be inward and the earth can warm. As indeed has happened since Dr Roy’s data as been collected. The earth has been measurably warming.
Come on Tim you are lot smarter than to fall for the 255K
You are suggesting a planet with no atmosphere, with no snow, with no ice sheets, and no clouds.
The albedo of the planet depends heavily on all of those.
with clouds accounting for 79 watts reflection that alone puts the surface temperature at 274K.
Throw in the snow and ice and you are probably up to 277k.
thats already 2/3rds of the effect. . .so much for the CO2 control theory.
throw in Roy’s UHE, and long lived warming feedbacks from the LIA you probably end up with a warming potential for CO2 around that estimated by Roy a few years ago which came in well less than 1 degree. . .negative feedback not positive feedback.
Tim,
Maybe you don’t agree that Feynman was clear when he wrote –
“First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.”
Rather than blathering about blocks, you might blather about why you disagree with Feynman.
You wrote ‘1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.’
But then wrote ‘By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.’
So 270 K fluxes don’t add, but 1150 K fluxes do? What’s the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?
The cut off point is the temperature of the emitting surfaces.
That is the maximum that any number of surfaces at that temperature can irradiate a surface with. A thousand surfaces at 205 K (100 W/m2) can only heat a receiving surface to a maximum of that temperature. The arriving flux of each surface will be much less than 100 W/m2.
A thousand surfaces at 1150 K (100,000 W/m2) can only heat a surface to 1150 K maximum, and can do so with careful geometric placement, by each providing 100 W/m2 to a surface.
Just like Clint, you fail to distinguish between emitted and received radiation.
Barry,
I can’t quite tell what point you are trying to make. It seems that half the time you are agreeing with me and half the time disagreeing.
You seem to agree with:
“A thousand surfaces at 1150 K (100,000 W/m2) can only heat a surface to 1150 K maximum, and can do so with careful geometric placement, by each providing 100 W/m2 to a surface.”
So we seem to agree that care with geometry is indeed vital for understanding radiation.
“So 270 K fluxes dont add, but 1150 K fluxes do? Whats the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?”
No. Fluxes from ANY temperature add. Geometry is the issue.
For example, half a dome of ice @ 270 K could provide 315/2 W/m^2 of flux TO a surface. The other half could provide another 315/2 W/m^2 of flux. We can add these fluxes from 270 K ice to get 315 W/m^2. Or we could have 100 sections of a dome and add the 3.15 W/m^2 that each provides
270 K fluxes DO add.
What we CAN’T do is have 2 domes and get 2×315 W/m^2. GEOMETRY prevents us from ever achieving more than 315 W/m^2 from surfaces emitting 315 W/m^2. By the time you have one whole dome, the radiation from any further bits of is is blocked.
I’m not disagreeing with you, Tim. I’m quoting Swenson quoting you above, and the post is to him.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But that is NOT possible using ice as the source. A drop of water totally surrounded by ice can get 315 W/m^2 when totally surrounded. But you cant totally surround the drop twice to get 630 W/m^2.”
Exactly. You cannot warm even a drop of water with the radiation from all the ice on Earth.
You cannot warm 1 mm2 of surface with all the radiation of a cooler atmosphere. No matter how many mirrors (plane or parabolic), lenses, or cunning methods of concentrating radiation you try to use.
To make something hotter you need something hotter.
No GHE. You can’t even describe what this mythical effect is supposed to do, in any way that reflects reality.
“To make something hotter you need something hotter.”
Which we have, shining its hotness on the Earth..
Did you forget about it again?
Well the sun did get hotter over the past 3 centuries.
Nate,
Yes, the Sun shines, resulting in surface temperatures between about +85 C, and -85 C.
And at night, the surface cools.
You cannot warm a warmer surface with a cooler atmosphere. No GHE – just sunlight, and the lack of it.
Exactly, Nate. The source of Earth’s heat is the sun, and the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.
Which is precisely why the temperature gradient is negative from the surface through the troposphere, and then positive through the stratosphere. If there was no atmosphere, this inversion would not be possible.
“You cannot warm 1 mm2 of surface with all the radiation of a cooler atmosphere. No matter how many mirrors (plane or parabolic), lenses, or cunning methods of concentrating radiation you try to use.”
But you can get temperatures in the thousands of degrees C by concentrating solar rays. The atmosphere has well-verified optical properties that influence the rate at which energy at different wavelengths flows through it, which is why the vertical temperature gradient changes sign 3 times with increasing altitude. That is purely a result of the structure of the atmosphere.
barry,
You wrote –
“Exactly, Nate. The source of Earths heat is the sun, and the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.”
Partially true. The oceans are heated from beneath, as is the crust upon which we live. The deeper you go into the crust, the hotter it gets. Plain fact.
As you say, “. . . the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.” This results in lower maximum temperatures, and higher minimum temperatures, than are found on the Moon with no atmosphere.
Are you trying to claim that a GHE (which you can’t describe) removes the necessity to accept the physical facts which you have pointed out?
What is it that you are trying to say without actually saying it?
Are you really some some evasive knucklehead, implying something by saying nothing?
There will be no shortage of rain in Australia, both north and south.
https://i.ibb.co/bddK8D7/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Update on the Odyssean task that is the energy transition
An old fashioned border/oil/proxy war is brewing on the northern coast of South America.
The United States announced joint military flight drills in Guyana on Thursday as tensions over a contested oil-rich region with neighbor Venezuela prompted the U.N. Security Council to call an urgent meeting.
The U.N. Security Council will meet behind closed doors Friday to discuss the tensions, according to an updated official schedule.
Oil discoveries raised Venezuela-Guyana tensions. The long-running dispute over the Essequibo -which comprises some two-thirds of Guyanese territory- has intensified since ExxonMobil discovered oil there in 2015.
Venezuela’s President Maduro upped the ante in recent days when he ordered the state oil company to start a bidding process for oil leases for extracting crude in Guyanese territory. He also gave an ultimatum to oil companies working under concessions issued by Guyana to halt operations within three months.
New Cuban missile crisis brewing?
The Climate Change Cult Just Got Even Crazier
https://youtu.be/Chqcyf0Y35g
Wherever Al Gore went is was usually, unusually cold.
It seems the climate cultist are trying to prove, that God has sense of humor- and that God exists.
Oh, global climate is not weather.
Global climate is about global average surface air temperature.
Global climate air temperature is warmed from the largest region of Earth’s surface, which the ocean surface.
The average average temperature of the global land surface is about 10 C and global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
Obviously, the ocean surface is warmer than 15 C and causes the higher global average surface temperature which warmer than the average land surface temperature {which can’t cause average temperature as high as 15 C}.
And also global average surface temperature is measured over many decades of time.
So, global climate is related to a constant factor, and that constant is the average temperature of the entire ocean, which is about 3.5 C and has been about 3.5 C for decades, and will continue to be about 3.5 C for many more decades.
And average ocean of 3.5 C is why we in an Ice Age and average ocean temperature of 3.5 C controls average ocean surface temperature.
Or the average ocean surface temperature of 3.5 C is the global average surface temperature. And defines the global climate.
Typical Denialist crap. Walsh (who ever he is) goes round and round claiming that “Climate Change” is a catch all term which is unverifiable description into which any short term weather event can be used to “prove” something. For example, at 12:30 minutes, he points to weather cold extremes experienced in the US during 1994. He deftly ignores the impacts of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which produced a well known cooling. And, of course, focusing on only one area of the Earth is not the same as a global impact.
Later, after comments on a claim by Mrs. Clinton, he claims that “in most cases the heat will not affect you that quickly or at all even in like 90 degree temperatures if you find a shady spot and have enough water to drink you can lay around outside all day and be perfectly fine actually you’d be quite pleasant…”. This comment represents a complete misunderstanding about the effects of high dew point temperatures on the human body, which cools by evaporation. If the dew point is high enough, (around ~35C), you can still experience hypothermia while sitting in the shade with a fan blowing on you because your body can not cool down. And high temperatures at night and over several days will cause other health problems as well, short of death.
That’s not to say that I agree with those politicians and media types who hype the situation, as Ms. Clinton and John Kerry appear to have done. The fact is that Climate is defined by scientists as the statistics of weather and it’s easy to cherry pick some subset of that data of bolster one’s point of view, be one either “Climate Cultist” or Denialist. It’s tough to explain the situation to the average person, who may not understand anything about the science, so attempts to do so require some simplifications. I’ve just finished reading Dr. Steve Koonin’s recent book (and some of his recent public presentations) and it’s full of errors which support his denialist stance. Both sides are guilty of abusing the scientific knowledge in order to “win” the debate.
Which climate predictions have come true? Wasn’t too late to do anything by 2016? Is the highway outside of James Hansen’s office underwater. Are polar bears extinct. Is more extreme weather really happening?
Hunter wrote:
The measurements of global temperature (not local) show a continuing increase. The warming is strongest over the Arctic, where the loss of sea-ice at the end of the melt season continues to exhibit minimums below the long term average. Data from the oceans (which do not exhibit urban “heat island” effects) continue to exhibit increasing temperatures.
But, of course, there are other influences on the climate besides increasing CO2, such as the increases in sulfate aerosols from burning more coal in China and India plus the emissions from ships used to move all that cargo from those nations to the wealthier nations of Europe and NA. That the picture is still cloudy does not disprove the basic science.
E. Swanson says:
Which climate predictions have come true?
The warming is strongest over the Arctic, where the loss of sea-ice at the end of the melt season continues to exhibit minimums below the long term average.
—————————–
It really is deceptive in climate to call anything a long term average except maybe its been warming for 300 years.
Sea ice was comparatively low in the4 1930’s on the basis of travel through the northern passages is concerned. So thats remains well within normal range within our ‘short term’ monitoring and the advances in monitoring of the same.
One could then surmise warming in the arctic in the 1930’s was also likely far greater than seen in the temperature record of the early 20th century as well.
One should not try to make to much of little blips in temperature changes and go off on some tantrum about declaring war on it.
INVESTS: Biden Invests $3 billion in Californias High Speed Rail.
https://freebeacon.com/california/biden-invests-3-billion-in-californias-high-speed-rail/
From https://instapundit.com/
“The money will help buy six electric trains and bankroll construction and design of a train station and other facilities and projects along a 171-mile stretch of rail line in Californias central valleyfar from either Los Angeles or San Francisco. So far this year the California bullet train project has also received nearly $230 million in U.S. taxpayer money through the 2021 federal infrastructure bill.
Bidens fresh money infusion comes as the high speed rail project already has a projected $100 billion deficit after spending more than $11 billion”
…
–Somebodys getting the money but, judging by the zero miles of track laid, it sure isnt people with any genuine interest in building railroads. —
Reminds me of NASA crew mission to Mars. NASA been fiddling with it for decades, but NASA’s crewed Mars program might be done, and might be a lot cheaper.
Of course, I have crazy ideas, related to it, also.
1000 km of floating breakwater. And put a under water “train” tunnel
under it or near it {hyperloop}.
2 billion dollar for 1000 km of breakwater crossing the state and about 8 billion for tunnel under water. And another 10 billion for fiddling bits, Space ports, surfing areas, connecting routes, and many ocean settlements, plus water waste treatment, and power plants.
Gordon:
“Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.”
Thank you, Gordon!
Check it here: https://imgur.com/a/vgtdJx6
Let me fix that for you …
Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation WAS ORIGINALLY based on real data produced by Tyndall IN THE 1800’s, science has, in fact, progresses in the past 150 year. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been show to work excellently for materials other than platinum, and for temperatures below 500 C and above 1500 C.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been show to work excellently for materials other than platinum, and for temperatures below 500 C and above 1500 C.”
–
Tim, please, how much below 500 C. It is very important!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even an inexpensive IR thermometer can accurately read to temps as low as -25C.
S/B Law works. That’s why it is a LAW.
IR thermometers are not based on S-B, they are calibrated in a lab from real temperature siurces and the radiation give off at those temperatures. That data is then stored in the memory of the meter so radiation detected by the meter can be compared to those values.
“Tim, please, how much below 500 C. ”
Well, the law as been applied to CMBR at 2.7 K. So at least that low.
Why is the law named after two scientists?
a) the dog ate my homework
b) theoretical and experimental evidence
c) Gordon never took physics
d) Astronomers use it to guess the temperatures of the surface of stars
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not limited to a specific temperature range. The equation is applicable across a broad range of temperatures, from extremely low temperatures in space to the high temperatures found in stars, and is a fundamental principle based on thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, making it universally valid.
And if you dive into the nitty-gritty, integrating Planck’s distribution law over all wavelengths gets you the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which says that the total energy density, as a function of temperature T, is proportional to T^4.
If you’re up for some reading, check out “Planck – The Theory of Radiation” (Translated by M. Masius), published in 1914.
You get this one right, Ark. Very good.
There’s nothing wrong with the S/B Law. It’s just that some people don’t understand it.
Thank you, Arkady Ivanovich.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not limited to a specific temperature range. The equation is applicable across a broad range of temperatures, from extremely low temperatures in space to the high temperatures found in stars, and is a fundamental principle based on thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, making it universally valid.
And if you dive into the nitty-gritty, integrating Plancks distribution law over all wavelengths gets you the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which says that the total energy density, as a function of temperature T, is proportional to T^4.”
–
What you say is complitelly right.
Now, please, read again what Gordon said.
–
“Gordon:
Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Now, please, read again what Gordon said.”
Why? He was wrong before, and that has not changed. Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher).
Tim,
You wrote –
“Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher).”
Well, no. You can’t tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) falling on it. To think so is ignoring reality.
For example, what is the temperature of an object exposed to 300 W/m2? -1 C? 100 C? Even 1000 C (think about it). You cannot say, can you! Not without exposing yourself as ignorant of basic physics!
Buy, build, or borrow a Leslie’s cube. Equip yourself with a Moll thermopile, microvoltmeter, and a few other bits and pieces. You will find very quickly that a certain temperature may have create any radiative flux up to the maximum possible for that temperature.
You don’t want to accept that you have been gulled, fine. Reality doesnt care what you think.
“You cant tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) falling on it.”
I said scientists apply it CORRECTLY. You tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) EMITTED BY it. This is how Tyndall correctly did it years ago with hot platinum. This how scientists correctly do it now for other materials and other temperature ranges.
“For example, what is the temperature of an object exposed to 300 W/m2? -1 C?”
To quote the classic movie “My Cousin Vinnie”, that’s a bullsh*t question. You determine the temperature by the radiation EMITTED (along with info about emissivity, geometry, etc). An object could be EXPOSED to very little radiation but be very hot (eg the sun). An object could be EXPOSED to a lit of thermal radiation an be cold (eg a block of ice in a furnace before it melts).
Now, there can be a connection between (radiation in) and (radiation out). In a steady-state situation with no conduction or convection (or internal sources), then (and only then) can you assume (radiation in) = (radiation out) and use (radiation in) to determine temperature.
Tim,
Some silly people believe that the Earth “should” really have a temperature of 255 K. They claim that they can calculate this by using the amount of radiation from the Sun which falls upon the Earth.
You seem to be one of them to a degree.
You wrote –
“Now, there can be a connection between (radiation in) and (radiation out). In a steady-state situation with no conduction or convection (or internal sources), then (and only then) can you assume (radiation in) = (radiation out) and use (radiation in) to determine temperature..
Fantasy, Tim, if you are talking about the Earth.
As Feynman wrote, talking about the conservation of energy –
“First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.”
Quite obviously, energy enters and leaves the Earth system, whether you accept it or not.
As to your other silliness about “. . . use (radiation in) to determine temperature.”, that’s just complete nonsense. I doubt that you can even dream up a fantasy scenario to support the SkyDragon cult conviction that they can calculate a “should be” temperature for the Earth illuminated by the Sun!
Even you agree that this is impossible in reality!
tim f…”Now, please, read again what Gordon said.
Why? He was wrong before, and that has not changed. Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher)”.
***
According to modern scientists, based on the S-B equation, ice emits 315 watts/m^2 of energy. Yet, even a 100 watts light bulb, rated at 100 watts of energy, is too hot to touch without burning one’s fingers.
In fact, the element in a tungsten light bulbs has a temperature of about 3000C. That’s why you can see the emission of visible light which is similar to solar light. Modern scientists tell us, again based on the S-B fantasy that ice, at 3000C less than the tungsten filament can radiate more energy than that tungsten filament at 3000C. There is no visible light emitted by ice, and does not glow in the dark, not will it light up a room.
A few more figures based on S-B….
-68.2C -> 100 watts/m^2
0C -> 315.66 watts/m^2 (equivalent to about 1/2 HP)
3000C -> 6,508,408 watts/m^2 (tungsten filament)
5000C -> 43,842,132 W/m^2 – surface of Sun.
The same scientists tell us the emitting surface of the Sun is at about 5000C, based on S-B. Yet the core temperature of the Sun is estimated to be around 1 million C. No explanation how it cooled between core and surface through hot plasma.
Tim is willing to bow to authority figures, as well as Barry, I am not.
Gordon says: “According to modern scientists, based on the –B equation, ice emits 315 watts/m^2 of energy. Yet, even a 100 watts light bulb, rated at 100 watts of energy, is too hot to touch without burning one’s fingers.”
Gordon makes the same mistakes as the GHE cult — “…315 watts/m^2 of energy.” — “…100 watts of energy…”
Flux, W/m^2, is NOT energy! Flux is the “rate of energy flow through an area”. Saying flux is energy is like saying 40 mph is a distance.
Skeptics need to learn the science, otherwise they’re just babbling in their own confusion.
Gordon,
The 100 watt incandescent bulb pushes that 100 watts through a filament of a surface area of less than 0.0003 square metres. If that same 100 Watts was distributed over a metre square surface, the temperature would indeed be -68C (in deep space).
(100 watts going through a 0.5 square metre blackbody surface yields a temp of -30C. Through 0.1 square metre the temperature shoots up to 91 C. A blackbody filament with surface area 0.0003 square metres, the resulting temperature is 1284 C)
You erred here in forgetting to factor the radiating area per wattage received.
The S-B law is not a fantasy. You just don’t have the insight to grasp it.
Gordon,
First, I agree with Clint here – your uses of “energy” is quite incorrect here. You confuse energy (in Joules) with power (in watts = J/s).
Beyond, that, you seem to confuse watts and watts per square meter. Modern scientists tell us, again based on the S-B f̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶y̶ Law that ice, at 3000C less than the tungsten filament can radiate more energy than that tungsten filament at 3000C. Yep! A whole square meter of ice radiates 315 W. And 0.000048 square meters of tungsten can also radiate 315 W. So as long as the ice has at least 21,000x more surface area, it will emit more total flux.
“No explanation how it cooled between core and surface through hot plasma.”
Even high school astronomy students could explain this to you. Any time you put a heat source (like the core) inside layers of insulation (like the radiative and convective zones) the temperature at the outside of the insulation will be lower than at the inside of the insulation.
You are not even trying if you can’t find this answer on the internet or work it out on your own.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Any time you put a heat source (like the core) inside layers of insulation (like the radiative and convective zones) the temperature at the outside of the insulation will be lower than at the inside of the insulation.”
True. Due to something like this – “Specifically, an inverse square law says that intensity equals the inverse of the square of the distance from the source.”
People like Willis Eschenbach reject this law, and dream up nonsensical ideas like “The Steel Greenhouse”.
So do SkyDragon cultists, who seem to think that a colder atmosphere, less dense than the surface, and emitting less intense radiation due to the inverse square law, will make the surface hotter! As Mike Flynn pointed out to Willis, surrounding a sphere of any temperature with a steel shell (with a temperature of absolute zero), won’t make the sphere hotter!
That’s about as silly as putting a bowl of hot soup in a freezer at -40 C, and hoping the reflected radiation from the freezer walls will make your soup hotter! Being a legend in your own lunchbox doesn’t make reality go away.
“Due to something like this …”
No. Due simply to insulation. Like around your house. No ‘inverse square’ needed.
“Thats about as silly as putting a bowl of hot soup …”
That comparison shows you have no idea about the scenario or the physics involved.
Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument to the point that no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.
If you have a different reference Tim please post it rather than parroting the favorite line of the non-science community.
“Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument…”
Did they? How about a quote?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
There’s the paper. Let’s see this eviscerating argument against insulation.
barry you provided it. the entire paper runs calculations on the conductivity of the atmosphere and no one has pointed out any error other than like a child-like foot stomping. where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions? then we can look at where G&T went wrong as you seem to be claiming. and of course if you disagree with the calculations you can do that too.
No response to G and T?
False!
There have been many, such as
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1
Bill,
“G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument”
they spend a third of the paper talking about real glasshouses, and I can find nowhere where they focus on the “insulation argument” and present a cogent rebuttal.
They do list other explanations of the GHE, but not any described as the “insulation” argument.
That’s why I’m asking you for a quote, or even a page number where they tackle it.
Because I don’t think they tackle it at all, and instead take on other descriptions/mechanisms of the GHE.
Bill, you said that no one picked up on the topic of the “insulation argument.” I can’t find that topic within the G&T paper (still hoping for a pointer from you), but there have been a number of rebuttals to their paper.
Eg
https://sci-hub.se/10.1142/s021797921005555x
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324
Sure thing Barry. Insulation is only used in 2 instances in the document. But the topic of insulation is about conduction not radiation.
So I would suggest searching on ”conducti” without a space at the end so as to cover both conduction and conductivity. Then read those parts and the supporting papers. As G&T note in their abstract that ”thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero” because its not zero.
Nate says:
”No response to G and T?
False!”
Nate I didn’t say there was no response to G&T I said ”where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions?”
I suppose you are an early version AI robot and didn’t pick up on the typo.
Hey Bill, I’ll remind you of what you said:
“Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument to the point that no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.”
So I asked where “that topic” had been covered in the paper.
It isn’t – there are 2 sentences containing the word “super-insulation” as you saw when you checked just now.
As conduction has nothing to do with the radiative GHE theory, G&T have not covered, much less eviscerated “the insulation argument.” The fact that they devote so much of the paper to atmospheric conduction, when this accounts for a tiny proportion of total heat flow (and that they spend 18 pages describing how glass greenhouses work), is indicative of their misunderstanding of the GHE.
Barry G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer. The stated that the atmosphere does not transfer heat to the surface and then spent most of the paper talking about conduction and convection changes being set to zero in the models. . .which modelers have acknowledged they do because if they didn’t then that would be negative feedback as Roy found in his analysis.
“G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer.”
No Bill. They are talking about conduction and supplying equations specifically for conduction.
They spend very little time talking about radiative transfer in the atmosphere – and that is the basis of the GHE.
And they get a lot of things just plain wrong, like misattributing quotes, completely misinterpreting quotes, and contradicting their sources.
You should read the rebuttal papers you implied did not exist, linked upthread. And there are a couple of detailed blog rebuttals from physicists, if you’re interested.
“Nate I didnt say there was no response to G&T”
FALSE:
” no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.”
Bill, you are shameless.
And my link above links to detailed responses to it.
“Barry G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer.”
No it isn’t. And Barry is correct.
“I said ‘where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions?'”
Here is an article that eviscerates G&T’s arguments on 2LOT violations:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
Eli says:
”Terry, you are missing the point, that conduction contributes essentially NOTHING to heat conduction in the atmosphere, which is dominated by convection, evaporation and condensation of water and radiation.”
that is a totally ignorant statement that has been repeated in here. Its ridiculous. without conduction there would be zero convection. Its everything to convection. Its just an academic exercise to try and separate them which is something you can’t do in the real world.
Like trying to make the moon move in two directions at once with an argument that says because you can break down a motion into two motions (like two vector forces acting on an object) that the moon will go in two directions. There might not be a better example in the world of ignorantly or diabolically elevating form over substance by a criminal over a victim. And we have some of those people in here.
But in the financial world they throw the criminals in jail and often the victim as well if he had the responsibility to prevent the crime.
“which is dominated by convection, evaporation and condensation of water and radiation.
He is correct. All those are much much greater contributors than conduction.
And back to the original point, he eviscerated the 2LOt argument in G&T.
Oh well!
He did that with what? A speculation about what would happen in a world without an atmosphere? Educate me here. Don’t hold back.
Read it. Than ask an informed question.
The surface conducts heat to the atmosphere. This occurs at the surface.
For the other 99.9% of the atmosphere, the vast majority of heat transport is done by other processes. Gases are very poor conductors.
Everybody has been saying for years its surface temperature we need to worry about.
“For the other 99.9% of the atmosphere”
Which controls the surface’s ability to cool.
This may help
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1575174
Sure Nate but convection occurs via the difference in temperature above as well and you are claiming that more CO2 up there is going to restrict cooling rather than enhance cooling up there as we know is what GHG do. They cool the upper atmosphere destabilizing it and convection occurs. And you are arguing that CO2 stablizes the upper atmosphere by preventing it from cooling.
At which level did CO2 reverse its effect? This like the boulder being lifted off the earths surface is going to transfer energy from its rotation around the COM of the earth to around its own COM. For what reason? You say its a must! And you fail to demonstrate why its a must. you advance the same logic here.
“Sure Nate”
Thanks.
The rest is another topic.
clint…Flux, W/m^2, is NOT energy! Flux is the rate of energy flow through an area. Saying flux is energy is like saying 40 mph is a distance”.
***
Clint continues to sit on a branch in a tree while he saws of the portion between him and the trunk.
40 mph describes a distance, the distance you will cover in an hour if you proceed at a certain rate of speed. You fail to grasp the import of an instantaneous rate of change. Velocity, a vector, describes an instantaneous rate of change whereas 40 mph, speed, is a scalar quantity describing a distance covered in an hour.
So, everyone is agreed that Gordon is wrong. We can now move on.
barry,
“So, everyone is agreed that Gordon is wrong. We can now move on.”
What statement is demonstrably wrong, and how many people agreed with your opinion?
You really are a presumption knucklehead, aren’t you? Maybe you looked in the mirror and agreed with yourself. That’s not “everyone”, you know.
Try again.
barry,
I apologise – I called you a presumption knucklehead.
I meant to write presumptuous knucklehead.
So sue me.
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/canadas-record-breaking-wildfires-2023-fiery-wake-call/25303
Over 45 million acres (18.4 million hectares) have burned across Canada as of November 2023, or about 5% of the country’s forests. The fires released an estimated 400 million metric tons of CO2 into the air, nearly triple the previous record set in 2014.
Canada’s boreal forest has long served as a carbon sink – absorbing and storing carbon from the atmosphere – but this year it became a source of carbon, releasing more than it stores.
2014??? The record for forest fires here in British Columbia was set back in 1939. There are no real forests elsewhere in Canada. At least, that’s what we claim here in BC, where Canada officially exists between the Pacific Coast and the Rocky Mountains.
The warming spike will be short lived
https://i.postimg.cc/QdjHMqcL/nino34-rescaling-GEM5-NEMO.png
Interesting to see you are now relying on GCMs to forecast the future. Did you realize you were posting the forecast from a climate model?
Are you aware that global temps tend to lag el Nino spikes by 3 to 5 months?
It sure seems unlikely to me that the global temps of the last 3 months could be exceeded, but not because of el Nino. As el Nino has continued to increase over the last few months, and if things went as usual, the global temp would follow that rise up to about February.
But it seem unlikely to me that el Nino is responsible for the lion’s share of the recent temp spikes.
barry,
As Yogi Berra supposedly said “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
An understatement. Predicting the future is not possible.
Wriggling around, using many words to say nothing, doesnt make you appear any more intelligent than you are.
Try harder.
barry is talking out of his ass
Which of my comments did you disagree with?
That the forecasts you showed are from Global Circulation Models?
That global temperature lags el Nino by a few months?
Do tell.
barry,
Eben wrote –
“barry is talking out of his ass”
If you disagree, just say so, and support your disagreement with facts.
I agree with Eben, in case you are interested.
Not even slightly.
“But it seem[s] unlikely to me that el Nino is responsible for the lion’s share of the recent temp spikes.
Very unlikely. HTE was the culprit.
Are you sure enough about this that you can predict when global temperature will drop back down?
It seems to me that HTE is a long-term effect, and this high temp anomaly should remain for many months if not a couple of years.
I predict, instead, that the temperatures will drop back down to average following the course of the el Nino.
We’ll see.
barry, I would enjoy educating you on what I know about the HTE, and how I was able to accurately predict UAH results. But, you have no interest in reality. Your only interest is in perverting reality.
I’m enjoying your meltdown, however. Maybe you and Norman could start a therapy group….
So, you won’t make a prediction on when the HTE effect will subside. And thus we won’t be able to gauge whether you had a sound grasp of the situation.
Global temps will drop markedly a few months after el Nino peaks. HTE will not keep them elevated above normal, like they have been the last 3 months, because HTE is not responsible for these large anomalies. That’s my prediction.
Your problem, as usual, is you don’t understand the science. The HTE is already over. The residual warm air is NOT the actual effect, it is the “left overs”. But the El Niño is still active.
When the EN is also over, temps will fall even more.
Sol, are you saying that the HTE had an effect on global temperatures only for the last three months, and now that is over?
Could you be a little clearer? Because there is not even correlation for this causation.
barry, barry, quite contrary.
You have NO interest in science. Your interest is in avoiding science. Once I was trying to explain something to someone in your cult. They did not seem able to understand. So, I tried a different method of explaining. Then, they claimed I wasn’t being consistent!
You’ve avoided the reality that fluxes cannot simply add. When you weren’t using “view factors”, you were calling me a “lying dog”.
I no longer waste my time with such immaturity.
I am not sure Clint is right on this. The mechanism from warming from HTE that I am seeing is a depletion of ozone which would be an ongoing process of aerosols continuing to interact with ozone bringing it to low levels allowing more sunlight to actually reach the surface.
So yes HTE isn’t adding more aerosols but apparently the chemical processes are not a one off event and a single aerosol molecule can destroy multiple ozone molecules in a cyclical chemical process.
thus it is difficult to say when the production of ozone will override the destruction of ozone since no accurate figures are available about the species of chemical in the stratosphere and how that might be changing over time other than noting that the ozone hole has gotten larger and we don’t have a good measure of that total effect except on a year over year scale. Or at least one I that is readily available to the public and easy to find on the NASA Ozone Watch page.
Wild Bill, what exactly are you disagreeing with? The HTE caused a spike in temperatures. Are you denying that?
The real Wild Bill shot one of his own deputies by accident. Even though Wild Bill was fantastic with his shooter, he should have been more careful.
Bill,
There was a theorised warming from water vapour in the stratosphere, which has increased by about 10-15% from the HTE. However, as there is so little water vapour in the stratosphere in the first place (less than 10 parts per million), this warming effect was assumed to be negligible, a few hundredths of a degree, perhaps.
Of course, this theory is not going to be of interest to people who deny the GHE.
Depending on latitude, stratospheric ozone has either increased or depleted.
There is a time series tool here that can give you data for a specified lat/lon column.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SatO3DataTimeSeries.jsp
Stratospheric ozone has overall depleted by a couple of percent. It’s normally 0.006% of the total of stratospheric gases at the highest concentrations at around 40 km altitude.
I don’t see any correlation between stratospheric ozone changes and global surface temperature through 2022. As the mechanism is simply allowing more/less solar radiation through the atmosphere, one would expect to see a fairly immediate response.
I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting. Absent any other correlation previously, something else is causing the recent high spikes in global temperature (and no, not CO2), above and beyond the effects of el Nino.
Well I would conclude that HTE caused a spike in temperatures if I abandoned all my skepticism and concluded not on the evidence but on the fact I can’t think of anything else it could be . . .like our CAWG mavens do daily.
The nauseating thing about ‘skeptics’ falsely saying that their opponents credit the recent spikes in global temp to CO2 is not that they are just lying, it’s the intellectual laziness. To think I continue to believe that such minds are capable of a reasonable discussion, against all evidence.
It’s not actually the “mavens” here who are fixated on AGW, it is the ‘skeptics’, who have to challenge it even when it is not being talked about, and even when someone has just said it’s not about CO2.
That kind of obsession is tedious.
barry says:
Of course, this theory is not going to be of interest to people who deny the GHE.
————————-
Well there is an infinite difference between denying the GHE/cause of GHE; and being skeptical of the GHE/cause of GHE. One term hardly encompasses much of anybody as most people are not completely devoid of skepticism.
barry says:
Depending on latitude, stratospheric ozone has either increased or depleted.
There is a time series tool here that can give you data for a specified lat/lon column.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SatO3DataTimeSeries.jsp
———————
Yes I have seen differences in the images of ozone around the ozone hole. But since the UN Environmental program has stated that the Montreal Protocol has saved us from a half degree of warming, I was curious what they based that calculation on.
I am not much interesting in grinding out the data grid cell by grid cell for the globe. Maybe we could convince Woodfortrees to give us access to trends in that dataset.
What we do know is UV is destructive of ozone as well so the ozone hold always develops in the fall as more UV falls on the southern hemisphere but its not clear why it peaks in September/October.
Stratospheric ozone has overall depleted by a couple of percent. Its normally 0.006% of the total of stratospheric gases at the highest concentrations at around 40 km altitude.
I dont see any correlation between stratospheric ozone changes and global surface temperature through 2022. As the mechanism is simply allowing more/less solar radiation through the atmosphere, one would expect to see a fairly immediate response.
I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting. Absent any other correlation previously, something else is causing the recent high spikes in global temperature (and no, not CO2), above and beyond the effects of el Nino.
barry misrepresents me: “I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting.”
Wild Bill can’t wait to parrot barry: “I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting.”
Wild Bill, if you keep shooting your toes off, you’re not going to have any left.
That is the impression you have been giving, Clint.
You’ve declined the invitation to be less vague, so that’s the impression that will remain.
Sorry barry, but your impressions are your responsibility. Just like your opinions. When they’re wrong, it’s your responsibility to correct them.
You’ll learn all this when you grow up.
I can’t read your mind, Clint. The only person I am going to learn about your views from is you, or some source you nominate that expresses what you think.
As you have have offered nothing from either, the responsibility to do something about the deficit certainly lies with you.
But I think you don’t have a theory beyond HTE = warming, and just enjoy the attention. You certainly don’t have a theory that you would risk a prediction with, such as when the alleged HTE effect is at its strongest, when it will dissipate, etc.
One of your problems barry is you favor your opinions over facts. I have explained the HTE several times, here. It’s public. Go find it.
But, you won’t because you’re afraid of reality. And I bring reality.
Boo!
“Wild Bill, what exactly are you disagreeing with? The HTE caused a spike in temperatures. Are you denying that?”
No, the Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce thing is definitely the cause of the spike, based on Clint’s correlation = causation science.
Why does Clint keeps insisting that he knows things that nobody has yet scientifically determined?
Nope I am just still trying to figure out why we measure ozone by a once a year regional effect instead of measuring global mean units of ozone.
barry…as Clint keeps pointing out, Hunga Tonga explains the rest. There is no way scientifically that trace gases in the atmosphere have that ability, especially over the short term of a couple of months.
I disagree about HTE, and no one here is claiming CO2 caused the recent months high temp anomalies. So you can drop that strawman on the bonfire, thanks.
Barry apparently does have a skeptical streak. . .at least when his Daddy has been silent on the matter.
How about saying something of substance instead of the ill-aimed ad hom, Bill?
IOW WTF are you blathering about?
There is no ad hom there Barry.
Its a compliment.
The only thing limiting the compliment was I have seen no evidence of you questioning those on your side. Not so for me.
You are entitled to your beliefs.
I am just skeptical enough to demand real evidence from anybody. At one time or the other I have argued with all the frequent posters here. Some times we settle those arguments, sometimes those who make statements that I question don’t have evidence either. If I were to characterize my stance it would most closely match Judith Curry as she sees the uncertainty I see.
A back-handed compliment is no compliment at all, Bill. You said I parrot what I’m told.
The difference between you and me is that I’m specific and you’re general and hand-wavy, and I provide substantiation for my views and you don’t.
I’m also conversant with each side of the ‘debate’ on a range of sub-topics that I’ve informed myself about a skeptical mind since 2007.
No one on this board ever gets close to correctly enunciating what I think, and this failure happens most days that I’m here. I guess it’s easier for them to deal with a caricature in their minds than have a real conversation.
Well if you can’t accept a compliment what do I care?
At least you’re original, except for the mantras you’ve learned to chant.
Feel complimented?
Yes I do. I learned a long time ago that repetition is the only way other than valuables to move the political needle.
Well the last UAH update was 3 3/4 months since the El Nino hit its peak in since Nino 3.4 is thought of as representing the central and eastern equatorial mean temperatures according to Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571589
That peak occurred in August when Nino 1+2 peaked at +3.4C degrees.
We will have to see if that holds up. It does seem very likely that the current global temperatures are being affected by the el nino plus something else that may well be after effects of HTE on stratospheric ozone. And of course perhaps a maximum being approached in the solar cycle as well for a triple whammy.
And of course if that’s the case it might take the better part of a decade for that cure itself.
Bottom line is, IMO, I wouldn’t be so certain of any explanation at this point.
Even worse are individuals asserting that the global temperature spike was anticipated. If I were to ask about the basis for this expectation, the likely response might involve reference to Earth’s energy imbalance.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-3825941
Walter,
Of course, the “Earth energy imbalance” crowd are unable to explain how the surface managed to become cooler from its initial molten state, in terms of “energy imbalance”.
If the Earth has an “energy imbalance”, their “conservation of energy” and “energy in = energy out” handwaving seems to be at odds with it.
The GHE knuckleheads are all over the place. Try and get them to state what they believe in – in some testable fashion.
Fat chance!
yep with ozone and 6c of uv light it blocks on average goes monster on us during solar maximums when the sun emits a lot more uv.
i once plotted the acceleration of warming against the solar cycles of the modern solar grand maximum for an almost perfect fit.
with hte, the recent ozone depletion coming roughly 2 years after the explosion as with pinatubo, solar maximum all lining up, is having an effect. also isn’t true that uah measures oxygen species and gets a cold stratosphere overlap in their data? i think i just overheard that so don’t take that last part to the bank. but is there another species in the stratosphere that would cause cooling there if depleted?
“If the Earth has an energy imbalance, their conservation of energy and energy in = energy out handwaving seems to be at odds with it.”
Strawman, as usual.
Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?
The observations right now are showing the Earth is out of balance. it is gaining energy, and thus warming.
When the Earth was cooling, it was obviously losing energy.
Nate says:
”The observations right now are showing the Earth is out of balance. it is gaining energy, and thus warming.”
Yeah well Nate believes that we all know that beyond a doubt.
But for some reason Nate can never explain exactly how he came to believe that. . .in terms of physics.
the only thing proven so far is that Nate can’t bring forth the physics support for his belief system to educate us simple and deplorable folks. . .despite his claims of being a physics teacher.
when asked his alter ego Willard will claim we aren’t paying for it and are just looking for a free sammich.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?”
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about no5 having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead?
Here’s the knucklehead belief – the Earth is getting warmer because it is surrounded with a colder layer of gas!
Now watch Nate claim he is not a knucklehead, and really doesn’t believe in anything at all!
He’s one of the peabrained knuckleheads.
Mr Hogle writes at Watts’ WUWT blog:
” The Arctic isnt reporting any unusually warm temperatures relative to the 2015 baseline… ”
That’s evident, isn’t it?
Let us look at a comparison: surface vs. lower troposphere (LT) for the satellite era:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GQJXz8Bvuf87ZIf1ssLTACNwMe4pcJKS/view
What else could we expect, when both surface and LT had in 2016 their highest temperature anomalies wrt 1991-2020, due to the 3rd highest El Nino after 1982/83 and 1997/98 (see MEI V2)?
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
“But for some reason Nate can never explain exactly how he came to believe that. . .in terms of physics.”
Oh enough with the whining that nobody has spoon-fed the science to you!
You have had it explained here many times. You have had papers shown to you.
You dont understand them. You could look up papers on your own. But you don’t bother.
And thus you remain ignorant.. That is totally your choice!
Nate,
You wrote
Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about no5 having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead!
Nate,
You wrote
“Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?”
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about not having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead!
Nate says:
”Oh enough with the whining that nobody has spoon-fed the science to you!”
and nate still can’t come up with the one critical paper covering the experiment that proves the back radiation heating model that without all the rest of the science collapses like a house of cards when you pull the key card out.
still no paper.
> the back radiation heating model
There are more mistakes than words in that expression.
Willard calls out Kevin Trenberth as an I.D.I.O.T.
The significance of the Arctic lies in its role as an early indicator of long-term changes in global temperatures. Since the summer’s spike, there haven’t been any reported unusually warm anomalies in the region. Considering this, the logical conclusion is that the spike is of natural origin and is expected to recede back to the previous norm.
I notice that from time to time, people advance some rather peculiar ideas about energy in the form of photons.
You may have heard that photons come out in blobs and that the energy of a photon is Plancks constant times the frequency. That is true, but since the frequency of light can be anything, there is no law that says that energy has to be a certain definite amount.
The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K.
By the way, the object is a lump of CO2. So much for the strange notion that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of certain wavelengths! I sincerely hope they were not taught such nonsense in a university physics course.
That’s why I don’t like the concept of the photon. It is far too cute. It is described as a particle of electromagnetic energy yet it has no mass, but it is claimed to have momentum. And as you have pointed out, when emitted from a source like a star, there are bazillions of these strange objects emitted at the same time.
I like the concept of a bundle of energy, an energy quantum, that is akin to a parcel with a definite frequency. Then again, how do bazillions of these parcels of energy unite into a coherent wavefront that has a frequency and a wavelength?
If a wavefront of light was examined microscopically, it would have to be made up of bazillions of wavefronts representing a myriad of singular frequencies generated by different electrons. Therefore, light as we observe it with the human eye is made up of bazillions of different frequencies/wavelengths which can be filtered out using a prism. We can also create the same ‘white’ light by combining the light colours red, green, and blue in the proper proportion.
However, a street light filled with a sodium gas would emit only at a singular frequency representing the colour yellow as perceived by the eye. Stimulating the eye with the correct proportion of red light and green light will also produce the colour yellow. However, the element sodium does not transmit red and green, only yellow.
Also, if a radio stations transmits a lower frequency EM, even though the signals contains millions of individual frequencies, it can be detected at a distant antenna and demodulated without a phase loss between the transmitted signals. That is particularly important with colour TV signals where a face colour varying over a few degrees can change the face colour from green to red.
Swenson: The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K…
After all the years of studying physics I do not understand the idea. Is the photon emitted from a single particle, e.g. from an atom? Then it has nothing to do with temperature, it has energy equal to the difference of energies of some two quantum states. Or is the photon emitted from such a thing like electron gas, i.e. it belongs to a continuous spectrum? Then it can have almost any frequency, only with different probabilities.
The quantum nature of the electromagnetic field means that an electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency can share (or gain) energy only in certain amounts called photons. We can dislike the concept of photon but nothing can be done about it.
The light with continuous spectrum surely can share energy in (almost) any amount. But the light going through an array of oscillators that are tuned to a certain frequency will lose the frequencies that can be absorbed by the oscilators and not other frequencies. Because other frequencies of light [generally] cannot loose energy in quanta that corresponds to the frequency of the oscilators.
Exactly, bohous
But… don’t think your scientific reply would stop Flynnson from continuing to bark his utter anti-scientific nonsense.
bohous,
You wrote –
“I do not understand the idea.”
Most people don’t understand.
As Richard Feynman points out –
“You may have heard that photons come out in blobs and that the energy of a photon is Plancks constant times the frequency. That is true, but since the frequency of light can be anything, there is no law that says that energy has to be a certain definite amount.”
To attempt to answer some of your questions –
A photon is emitted from an electron. I am omitting nuclear processes.
Talking about energy from “two different quantum states” is meaningless, without further explanation.
You wrote “The quantum nature of the electromagnetic field means that an electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency can share (or gain) energy only in certain amounts called photons.” You appear confused. A photon can any energy at all. As Feynman points out, the frequency of light can be anything at all. Multiplying Planck’s constant by a frequency which can be anything at all, gives a photon energy which, likewise, can be anything at all.
I’m not sure what you mean by “But the light going through an array of oscillators that are tuned to a certain frequency will lose the frequencies that can be absorbed by the oscilators and not other frequencies. Because other frequencies of light [generally] cannot loose energy in quanta that corresponds to the frequency of the oscilators.”
If you are disagreeing with my statement “The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K”, maybe you could indicate why you think it is impossible.
Reality is what it is. I find no reason to disagree with Feynman’s view of quantum electrodynamics theory, and it seems nobody has managed to perform an experiment to show that QED theory is wrong.
Maybe your teachers didn’t understand either. This idea that energy quanta come in “blobs” of fixed sizes is widespread, and completely wrong. The “blobs” can be any size at all, as Feynman points out.
I hope this helps you.
Just curious — what *is* the energy of a photon emitted by a 1 K object? Either joules or eV would be find.
Tim,
Energy of photon emitted by 1 K object?
You really lack the competence to look it up? I don’t believe you!
If we “look it up” we will be directed to information about blackbody radiation and how photons are emitted across a spectrum.
So I am STILL wondering which specific frequency YOU think will be emitted which is DIFFERENT from the answer we get when we ‘look it up’.
Tim keeps coming back to photons.
This is why Einstein didn’t like that name for his light quanta.
Photons have a frequency and heat is expressed as a vibration/frequency. Is it a wave or an object. Well its hard to image a wave without a medium upon which to travel so folks just give up and assume photons are objects. Einstein though knew he was dealing with something unique. So his quote near the end of his life pretty much says it all.
”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
That should provide at least a clue about why experiments of the 3rd grader radiation model might never cause any warming.
But the mantra continues.
Sorry, I thought that my post was not inserted after I switched off the comp. Then I wrote a second version. Now both of them appeared.
In this version I speak about frequency of oscillators and compare it with frequency of light. It is not generally exact, I should have compared energies. Nevertheless, transition between quantum states of electrons tend to have the same frequency as the photon with the same ΔE. It is what confused me.
Electromagnetic energy does not come in “blobs” of a certain size. It comes – usually – in the form of an electromagnetic waves. And these waves do release energy only in quanta of a size dependent on the frequency of the wave.
A good point to understand the quantum nature of light comes from the Doppler effect (or red shift): If a monochrome source of light moves away from you, you receive a lower frequency and therefore the quantum of that light will be smaller than it is for an identical stationary source.
bohous,
You wrote
“I do not understand the idea.”
Most people dont understand.
As Richard Feynman points out
“You may have heard that photons come out in blobs and that the energy of a photon is Plancks constant times the frequency. That is true, but since the frequency of light can be anything, there is no law that says that energy has to be a certain definite amount.”
To attempt to answer some of your questions
A photon is emitted from an electron. I am omitting nuclear processes.
Talking about energy from two different quantum states is meaningless, without further explanation.
You wrote The quantum nature of the electromagnetic field means that an electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency can share (or gain) energy only in certain amounts called photons. You appear confused. A photon can any energy at all. As Feynman points out, the frequency of light can be anything at all. Multiplying Plancks constant by a frequency which can be anything at all, gives a photon energy which, likewise, can be anything at all.
Im not sure what you mean by “But the light going through an array of oscillators that are tuned to a certain frequency will lose the frequencies that can be absorbed by the oscilators and not other frequencies. Because other frequencies of light [generally] cannot loose energy in quanta that corresponds to the frequency of the oscilators.”
If you are disagreeing with my statement “The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K”, maybe you could indicate why you think it is impossible.
Reality is what it is. I find no reason to disagree with Feynmans view of quantum electrodynamics theory, and it seems nobody has managed to perform an experiment to show that QED theory is wrong.
Maybe your teachers didnt understand either. This idea that energy quanta come in blobs of fixed sizes is widespread, and completely wrong. The “blobs” can be any size at all, as Feynman points out.
I hope this helps you, as you seem quite clueless.
Swenson,
“If you are disagreeing with my statement The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K, maybe you could indicate why you think it is impossible.”
It is possible for the two objects to emit a photon of the same energy, because they each emit a spectrum of wavelengths, not a single wavelength.
Swenson: “The energy of a photon emitted by an object at 1 K is different to the energy emitted by that same object at 1.000000000000000001 K.”
After all the years of studying physics I do not understand the idea. Is the photon emitted by a single particle, e.g. molecule or atom? Then it’s energy has nothing to do with temperature. It is equal to the difference between some two quantum states. Or, is the photon emitted by something like electron gas, i.e. as a part of a continuous spectrum? Then the energy is random, only has different probabilities.
The quantum nature of photon simply means that an electromagnetic wave with a given frequency can share (or gain) energy only in certain amounts, quanta. These quanta are called photons. If light with continuous spectrum passes through an array of oscillators that can absorb (or emit) energy ΔE, the oscillators will absorb (or scatter) only the wavelength whose energy quantum corresponds to ΔE. I.e., only photons with energy ΔE. We have no duty to like the concept of photon but it is useful to describe this experimental fact.
bohous…”Is the photon emitted by a single particle, e.g. molecule or atom? ”
***
A photon is a theoretical particle representing a quantum of electromagnetic energy. It is a theorized quantum of EM intended to create a particle of EM, a notion I find iffy. For example, a photon is claimed to have no mass, in respect of it being EM, which has no mass, yet it is regarded as a particle, that must have mass. It’s a flaky notion at best and no one can prove to this day that photons exist. Mind you, no one has seen an atom either, although it can be proved that something is there that has mass. The same cannot be claimed about the photon.
There is only one particle in an atom capable of emitting or absorbing the theoretical photon, and that is the electron. This is a no-brainer although theorists have trouble with it. An electron is a particle but it also carries an electric charge and that electric charge creates an electric field. There is the ‘E’ in EM. When that charge moves, it produces a magnetic field, which is the ‘M’ in EM.
A photon of energy, E = hv, is generated whenever an electron moves from a higher energy orbital to a lower energy orbital. The frequency, v, of the generated photon is related to the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit. The overall energy, E, is related to the energy difference between orbital levels. In other words, a photon is defined based on the the electron and its orbital properties.
One has to be careful here and distinguish between electrons orbiting atoms and free electrons moving in a conductor. Both are capable of generating EM fields. However, the single electron orbiting an atom produced a single frequency of EM when it drops over one or more energy levels whereas an electron moving in a conductor generates EM that has a frequency based on the number of times an alternating current changes direction. You can also have an EM field created from a direct current and it has no frequency. The point is, the electron generates all EM fields due to its electric charge,
The same cannot be said about particles in the nucleus, protons, which also carry an equal and opposite charge to the electron, however, the proton is locked in place in the nucleus. It cannot change energy levels in the same manner as the electron and it is the ability of the electron to change orbital energy levels that accommodates the absorp-tion/emission of EM.
That is the basis of Bohr’s theory, that electrons moving between different energy levels produce discrete frequencies of EM. Although some tend to write off Bohr’s theory it is still the basis of modern atomic theory based on Schrodinger’s equation. That is, Schrodinger’s equation is based directly on Bohr’s theory of electron orbitals and orbital energy levels.
Bohr’s theory was basically about the hydrogen atom, with only a one proton nucleus and an electron orbiting it. It cannot describe atoms with multiple proton/electrons, it had to be modified to accommodate those more complex atoms. However, the basis of the Bohr theory still applies to more complex atoms and molecules, which are multiple atoms bonded by electrons.
However, that one electron in the hydrogen atom is capable of generating and absorbing many different frequencies of EM, ranging in frequency from the ultraviolet range down to the infrared. The sole electron has at least 7 different orbital energy levels and the frequency generated depends on the number of energy levels through which it drops.
Therefore, there is no other explanation for EM (photon) generation or absorp-tion than electron orbital energy level changes. Many here have waved their arms in the air and claimed EM is produced by ‘molecules’ and ‘atoms’ but they cannot explain where the EM originates in either.
Gordon,
I though you claimed to take Organic Chemistry?
“Many here have waved their arms in the air and claimed EM is produced by molecules and atoms but they cannot explain where the EM originates in either.”
From molecular orbitals in those molecules.
These I have measured and detected using an IR spectrometer in an introductory class in Organic Chemistry.
I should dispute with two ideas:
G.R.: The frequency, v, of the generated photon is related to the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit.
In reality, the frequency connected with the change of a quantum state is proportional to the difference of energies of the two quantum states. It is not so easy to explain but it does not surprise.
G.R.: The same cannot be said about particles in the nucleus… It cannot change energy levels in the same manner as the electron…
In reality, particles in the nucleus also do change quantum states and emit photons. Nevertheless, the differences between energy levels are so big that the photons are gamma radiation.
binny…”None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Currys Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog”.
***
That’s plainly because there are no ijits over there like you. I prefer Roy’s approach that allows posters to vent against stoopidity and pseudo-science. We need comical action to break the tension even though you regard comical action as personal insults.
Scientists like Carl Sagan indulged in the same insults and put-downs, never offering his targets the opportunity to hit back. Alarmists like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann at realclimate do much the same, banning anyone who contrdicts their propaganda.
Roy is far more mature than that lot, allowing a certain amount of freedom of expression. Of course, that is anathema to a Teuton like you.
It’s Bindiclown’s wet dream to became a moderator
Robertson
” I prefer Roys approach that allows posters to vent against stoopidity and pseudo-science. ”
No.
You discredit anything scientific and denigrate all the scientists who write what you dislike because you don’t understand any<thing of what they write.
99% of your posts are a triple concentrate of stoopidity and pseudo-science.
Roy Spencer does not explicitly 'allow' anything of the lies and harsh insults a la 'cheâting SÔB' you repeatedly spread over his blog, Robertson: rather, he simply will lack the time needed to moderate bullshît like yours, and to consequently drop it off.
*
If you had balls, Robertson, you would go to Judith Curry's blog, and try to post there your pathological nonsense over there.
But… you perfectly know you'd be banned there within a day, hence prefer to conveniently post it here instead.
You are such a coward.
And the little dachshund once more patiently awaited the schäferhund’s barking, before courageously ankle-biting behind His Master’s Voice.
Well done, Eben.
If you had balls, binny, you would go to Judith Curry’s blog, and try to post there your pathological nonsense over there.
It’s amusing how he labeled me the ass kisser when he’s always pretending he’s neither a ‘coolista’ nor a ‘warmista.’ I’ve yet to witness him criticize a ‘warmista,’ even though they spew their fair share of nonsense. Who’s the genuine ass kisser here? The hypocrisy is just too rich.
Walter,
People like Bindidon do not have the balls (Binny’s word) to actually come right out and commit themselves to anything that can be examined or disproved.
I’ve yet to see any of them even admit to the Earth’s surface having cooled over the last four and a half billion years, let alone proffer a sensible explanation for that phenomenon. They know that if they accept reality, their fantasy GHE flies out the window.
It is somewhat amusing to see the mad capering of some of these cultists trying to avoid saying anything much at all – just innuendo and insinuation, with an odd implication thrown in.
Sewnson lies through his teeth on a daily basis.
“I’ve yet to see any of them even admit to the Earth’s surface having cooled over the last four and a half billion years”
Tim Folkerts in reply to Swenson: “I accept (and I am sure everyone else does too) that the surface has cooled *overall* in the past 4 billon years.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-735875
I’ll quote myself, too.
“The sun has become hotter over 4.5 billion years while the earth cooled over the same time.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/#comment-218514
That was in a reply to you when you were posting here as Mike Flynn.
Liar.
Well I have agreed that the Earth’s surface was at least nearly completely molten and has cooled since then, what I don’t agree with Swenson is whether it formed in that molten state or not.
Also there is evidence that the Earth was nearly completely frozen over at one or three times during its history and it cooled to that state.
Swenson is a cherry picker.
Barry finds a few boats that had been drifting on the ocean for 4 billion years that shows signs of having once been frozen over and he concludes (probably with the help of his daddy) thats evidence that the entire world was frozen over at one time.
sorry Barry I meant Bob.
No Bill,
It’s not boats on the ocean, it’s that there are some rocks missing.
You can look, and put your hands on the evidence.
Take a trip out west, I hear it’s nice this time of year.
The others are already there.
No, seriously, there is evidence that millions of years of sedimentary rocks are missing. It’s like they were scraped off by something, maybe glaciers.
And evidence of glaciers dropping rocks elsewhere.
And I didn’t say the entire world was frozen over, just nearly so.
bobdroege says:
”And I didnt say the entire world was frozen over, just nearly so.”
How did you determine nearly so? The last ice age froze over all of Canada with fingers of ice extending down into Illinois and Missouri. So you can rule that out as approaching one third the globes surface area.
And of course the boat analogy was to continental crust floating around the globe.
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/images/education%20careers/KS4/Chapter%201/slide8.jpg?la=en
So what evidence do you claim for the entire world being nearly frozen over? Is this something your daddy told you or do you have a source?
Bill,
You could ask nicely or be a heel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity#Hutton's_Unconformity
Start there.
Heel? You mean your daddy told you?
Bill,
Do you know how to click on a link and read?
You failed at your attempt to search the Real Climate site.
You did notice that there isn’t a consensus among experts as to the cause of the Great Uncomformity where a billion years of rock formations disappeared.
Various reasons for it:
1) continental drift
2) subduction
3) mudflows
4) floods
5) glaciation
Bottom line is your link sends one to a snowball earth link that talks about rock formations with a bunch of links for snowball earth from other rock formation discussions and carbon dioxide earth models of low carbon dioxide causing a snowball earth.
Problem for them is showing carbon dioxide was ever that low.
the National Academies paper suggests that the Great unconformity wasn’t a single global event like a snowball earth but instead ”sort of an anomalous abundance of unconformities during this period.” over a 2 billion year period of time.
”If you go to places on the Canadian Shield, you might see Archean, so 2.5-billion-year or older rocks, with sediments that are Cambrian or Ordovician on top of them. So you’re missing 2 out of that 2.5 billion years. In other places, the gap may be much, much shorter, but in all cases, there’s sort of an anomalous abundance of unconformities during this period.
So we get a whole herd of scientists who should know better parlaying that into financial aid for their institutions.
Oops! Goofed! Forgot to wash the records clean, build a consensus, start a UN panel and declare earth was once a snowball as settled science.
But no need, Ol’ Bob believes it.
Bill,
I didn’t say there was a consensus, but even the mere suggestion of that gets your panties in a twist no?
I said there was evidence, did I say I believed it?
Did I say my daddy told me so?
Theres nothing wrong with the S/B Law. Its just that some people dont understand it.
–
“Gordon:
Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.
–
“That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.”
Thank you, Gordon!
I very much agree with your statement.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
How can you be so gullible and believe the absolutely unscientific nonsense that the ignorant Robertson brazenly posts on Roy Spencer’s blog?
It comes exclusively from
– contrarian blogs that only publish pseudo-skeptical information
and
– nonsense that he in addition constantly invents and, despite numerous counterarguments, acts as if he had never read it, so he repeats his nonsense from scratch ad nauseam: a typical sign of the beginning of neurodegenerative phenomena.
*
What Robertson claims you will find nowhere else, beginning with what Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck and many others wrote over a century ago.
*
Years ago, I read this document, written in German:
https://www.physik.uni-jena.de/pafmedia/dokumente/samstagsvorlesungen/erderwaermung-zum-nachrechnen.pdf
Ίσως ο Χρήστος Βουρνάς αφιερώνει χρόνο για να το μεταφράσει στα ελληνικά και προσπαθεί να μάθει από αυτό.
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
Very interesting article you gave me. I already translated it (mechanically) and started reading it carefully. Thank you.
–
“What Robertson claims you will find nowhere else, beginning with what Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck and many others wrote over a century ago.”
–
What Robertson claims is very much important to understand what is going on with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
–
When you apply the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law to bodies with some low temperatures, like the terrestrial temperatures, and lower, it results in a complete nonsense.
–
Thanks to Gordon, I know why we should not use the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law as it is formulated for the high frequencies EM emission, from the very hot bodies’ surfaces.
–
And, I am thankful to Gordon, for his persistence to make it clear to all of us, by repeatedly explaining and accenting on things we do not see or we do not understand yet!
–
Please, Bindidon, take a careful notice and try to visualise what you don’t accept in Gordon’s sayings, because Gordon knows things we do not see and we are ignorant about.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” When you apply the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law to bodies with some low temperatures, like the terrestrial temperatures, and lower, it results in a complete nonsense. ”
By writing this ridiculous lie, you are unmistakably admitting that you did not understand the article, let alone did ever read anything originally written by Stefan, Boltzmann and Planck.
Thank you.
Very interesting article you gave me. I already translated it (mechanically) and started reading it carefully.
COP28 is approaching its final days and it is clear that, so far, expectations have been met… https://imgur.com/a/c2TkTtD
A,
My expectation is that COP28 will have no effect on weather or climate. Do you disagree?
“Although the internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stup.ider, because it is not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. It renders everyone an instant expert. You have a degree? Well, I did a Google search!
Frank Bruni
Hmmm.
A google search is enough to find answers to questions that are probably better than any answer you might get from an ‘expert’ in any given field.
Apparently that makes us stup.ider? I don’t think so.
Sure there is a lot of disinformation … its all part of your responisibility to develop a BS filter.
Not any different from books; lots of books are chockerblock with false information. Some books should be burned … and not because of ideology they might contain but rather the garbage that doesn’t serve anyone reading them.
Too, Mark Twain was complaining about newspapers long before there was ‘mainstream media bias’.
Ken,
I don’t agree about burning books. If believe want to reject reality, and believe in fantasy, why not let them?
Who determines which books should be burnt? You? Me? An “expert”?
All media is biased. It’s created by people – who of course are all biased! A jolly good thing too!
At last, Swenson and I agree on something. Book burning is an execrable practise.
“A google search is enough to find answers to questions that are probably better than any answer you might get from an ‘expert’ in any given field.”
Absolute tosh. The amount of disinformation on the net that is swallowed on a daily basis could create a singularity.
And what if you keep getting two or three or four very different answers as you google for the Truth? No, people are biased, and their search history will bias the results of their searches to what they prefer. Thus, someone who buys ayurvedic products will get lots of hits about alternative medicine for their throat cancer.
Anyone going to google instead of a real doctor for a medical problem should probably book themselves in with a shrink. Of course, you can always ask google for help with a mental condition….
barry,
You wrote –
“Anyone going to google instead of a real doctor for a medical problem should probably book themselves in with a shrink.”
I wouldn’t go that far. If you want to believe anything you like – fine. I’m not sure whether consulting a “real” doctor is a guarantee of sound advice, which will result in the best outcome for you. Most “real” doctors will recommend you seek a second opinion if you are unhappy with the advice given. How confident does that make you feel?
I use my own judgement these days. If I feel like looking at Google (not often – too many different opinions), consulting texts (similar problem), or consulting a fish-slapping therapist, I do it. I have to accept the consequences.
I’m still alive, in spite of occasionally completely ignoring well-meant advice from “real” doctors.
Your opinion may differ.
“Most ‘real’ doctors will recommend you seek a second opinion if you are unhappy with the advice given.”
But they won’t advise you consult Doctor Google.
“How confident does that make you feel?”
Very. A much more convincing answer than a direction to see no one else.
How confident would you feel getting personal medical advice from a blogger with no qualifications in medicine?
Actually in this day and age consulting Google is a good way to quiz your doctor. You will find many of them not keeping up with continuing education. Especially true for a lot of the retired curmudgeons in this forum.
Google is especially good on nutritional issues where MD training has generally sucked. Doctor’s are slow at updating their medical advice. The good ones listen to their patients and many patients are asking questions of their doctors from stuff the learned online.
anthony fauci is a perfect example of that. He spouts a lot of medical advice that has risen to the level of political dogma.
“anthony fauci”
It seems conservatives NEED an enemy more than anything else.
Someone they can blame for all their ills. Libtards in general do the job.
Oddly, as in Fauci’s case, some of these enemies have done nothing wrong.
Fauci is a little man, not enough of a man to call an enemy.
Lots of little men get promoted to places well above their competency level precisely because they are so easily manipulated. Heck Nate has been manipulated into believing an object traveling in a straight line without spinning on its axis has angular momentum. He sees that as the last refuge of his spinner position.
Then why do conservatives constantly rant about him, as if he is the devil?
it is obvious that fauci abuses his power and lies outright to the public as to what the science is saying. he is a little man who sees his job as protecting his own interests and perhaps the special interests whom he has bet his future on.
You gotta find someone to hate.
Nate you are projecting.
What does having a degree do with thinking clearly. I dare say that most people earning a degree do so by closely following authority figures and when ordered to jump, they ask, ‘how high’?
Scientists like Roy and John Christy learned to think for themselves and that ability no doubt came from something they have within, unlike followers like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann.
Gordon,
please confirm your point of view and tell us that you don’t go to doctors for medical advice.
Who do you see for a serious medical condition? Ayurvedic healers? Someone working with chakras?
Thanks in advance.
doctors are required by law to give you well vetted advice. climate scientists can lie all they want and the only music they might face is the displeasure of their institutional employer whose main interest is how much funding the scientist brings in.
so yeah i am sure the institutions are happy customers of climate science work because you pay for it.
If you read Gordon’s comment then you might not miss the point so badly.
This wasn’t about climate science, but skeptics can’t help circling back to gnaw on their favourite bone.
You call your opponents alarmists and cultists, but it’s actually you guys who chant the mantras.
Incorrect Barry. What we are talking about is that the government sees it worthwhile to regulate people so as to ensure that when the public seeks expert advice they get somebody who is incentivized to not take advantage of the opportunity. That is they see it as worthwhile to do that for everybody except themselves. Take that and see if you can make it compute.
Barry essentially that is ”the Swamp.” And this is how many people do business. With regulators and enforcers regularly switching sides. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
No, this is about expertise. You don’t get to be a doctor or a physicist by cronying with politicians, and physicists and doctors employed by the government are often enough at odds with government.
this not a discussion of expertise. People use their expertise in both honorable and dishonorable ways. If you want to go to an expert for advice go to one who is under the threat of criminal liability for advice and completely avoid those who are not.
Thats good advice to not get abused like you were somebody who just fell off the turnip truck.
It’s about expertise, Bill. Look at the post that started the discussion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571961
“Although the internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stup.ider, because it is not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. It renders everyone an instant expert. You have a degree? Well, I did a Google search!”
Frank Bruni
Nothing to do with governments.
Use the internet at your own risk Barry. But don’t require helmets to surf the internet.
One has to go back to the period before the polio vaccine, to understand how impactful vaccines have been on human health, and society as a whole.
But today, because of misinformation, people reject many vaccines, and everyone can be affected.
Just one example of how we have become stup.ider.
Nate says:
But today, because of misinformation, people reject many vaccines, and everyone can be affected.
Just one example of how we have become stup.ider.
———————–
Well at least you used ‘can’ instead of ‘will’. Thats a pretty good walk back.
Who do you propose we experiment upon to change the can to the will?
Usually the ethical approach is to use volunteers. But not with today’s socialists. They believe they can read tea leaves.
In our school days, kids had to be up to date on vaccinations before they could attend school.
As a result we didnt get epidemics.
Since then, we have gotten stup.ider.
And we have had resurgence of childhood illnesses such as Scarlet fever, tuberculosis, mumps, measles.
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/5-old-diseases-that-are-making-a-comeback
A number of problems have been found. It wasn’t until 2009 that immigrants were required to have vaccines.
Still today there is no follow up on immigrants getting the subsequent doses as they only provide the first in the series and allegedly advise the immigrant to follow up themselves when they see a doctor.
Also refugees are completely excluded from any vaccine requirements.
Finally, international travel of foreigners visiting the US. That has gone up vastly in the last 60 years.
There is only piecemeal enforcement usually depending upon policies of non-governmental bodies to try to get travelers like sports teams to get shots.
Add to that waning immunity from current vaccines and it isn’t at all surprising we are seeing some of these surges.
Doctors can be wrong. Thats why we seek second opinions.
Scientists can be wrong thats why science requires multiple replications before new results in science are widely accepted.
Well we are still waiting for the 3rd grader radiation model to be validated since it was used for many years to scare young people.
“3rd grader radiation model to be validated”
Nah, any warped versions of the real GHE models in your mind cannot be validated, by definition.
Nope, it can be validated statistically maybe in a few hundred years. It could be validated experimentally almost instantaneously with a demonstration. Or it might be validated by an experiment that extended over a climate length period of time that turned every living thing on earth into a guinea pig for a generation or more.
Socialists are well known to choose the last one.
Weird Bill…
Nate chose to not address a well known truth and go after the messenger instead.
Who substituted politics for science, again?
“Socialists are”
Only socialists try to turn a society into a grand experiment for an idealized society. All the authoritarians before the socialists were just trying to make life as comfortable for themselves as much as possible.
Its certainly not political nor an insult anyone that values what it is. The name itself is derived from the very idea of rigid social organization and hierarchy of authority.
That is true for all but the Social Democrats and Marxists.
They envision democracy and free choice arising out of that hierarchy of authority after submitting to that authority and giving up free choice.
Pointing out that it substitutes authoritarianism for individual choice goes without saying.
No science at all, just your personal politics.
Weak.
well why don’t you come up with an example of socialist rule that you think has worked well before you start declaring success and no science to ensure we are on the same page. I mean we are talking about an end to meritocracy here. is that what you are going to defend?
Nah, not interested in following you down another rabbit hole.
Gordon,
Sounds like sour grapes from a guy who didn’t get a degree.
In my studies towards getting a degree I repeated many famous experiments to see that we could get the same results. These included the Michelson Morley experiment, the Millikan oil drop experiment and the double slit experiment both with water and light.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Why are deniers on this site denying the Planck Feedback a.k.a. Planck Response?
Other than ignorance I see no good reason. It seems counterintuitive for them to deny a natural process that is strongly restorative (i.e. negative) and works to cool the planet.
Asking for a friend.
Deniers do things like say there was way less than 6 million Jews, enslaved, tortured, and killed by the German govt.
But the old Gray Lady said we are going into an Ice Age, and modern media outlets claim we going into Ice Age. When of course we have been in an Ice Age for millions of years. Is that not denying reality also?
gbaikie
” … killed by the German govt. ”
*
How can you, gbaikie, write such incredible nonsense?
Do you really believe that the topmost Nazis Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler, who were more responsible than anyone else for this process of trying to exterminate the Jews, were part of any ‘government’ ?
They were the leaders of one of the worst dictatures the world ever experienced during the XXeth century, together with that of Josef Dschugaschwili aka Stalin, Mao Zedong and Saloth Sâr aka Pol Pot.
There were as much of govt as Iran govt is a government.
Or Chinese govt, or North Korea, and many other so called governments.
Some people even call the UN a governing body.
The German people voted for it, and fought for it.
For what reason?
They wanted to return to glorious times long before the industrial revolution. All these to people want to go back to times which were crappy.
” The German people voted for it, and fought for it. ”
Yes, that’s right: the Nazis began dismantling the already very weak German democracy already before 1933, and destroyed it immediately after they won the majority in the Reichstag.
*
But… I’m pretty sure you too would, like me, ‘fight’ for Nazi dictators – instead of becoming tortured by their GESTAPO in bloodstained dungeons, by first having your teeth and all nails pulled out.
” They wanted to return to glorious times long before the industrial revolution. ”
You definitely ignore how the Nazis finally got to power in the Reichstag.
The reason for this was that they were tactically clever in exacerbating German resentment at the extreme humiliation of their country by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, after losing the First World War.
*
Even Kanucks should inform themselves and read before they write.
Binny,
You wrote –
” But Im pretty sure you too would, like me, fight for Nazi dictators instead of becoming tortured by their GESTAPO in bloodstained dungeons, by first having your teeth and all nails pulled out.”
I don’t recall seeing that threat in any German recruitment literature. Maybe you could provide more details?
You do realise that the penalty for sleeping in the British army could be death, I suppose.
“Death sentences were passed by the British Army in courts martial between 1914 and 1924 for offences such as sleeping on duty, cowardice, desertion, murder, mutiny and treason.”
At least if you had your teeth pulled out at no cost, dental work for full dentures would be cheaper. Likewise, if you had rough and discoloured nails, the new ones which grew back would be lovely and fresh. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t pass the army medical. No fighting for you – win-win. A bit of pain, for a lot of gain, if you hated your government so much.
Governments in general are a sad lot. Do you disagree?
Bindidon says:
”But Im pretty sure you too would, like me, fight for Nazi dictators instead of becoming tortured by their GESTAPO in bloodstained dungeons, by first having your teeth and all nails pulled out.”
Bindidon handily leaves out that the Germans voted a plurality for the Nazis and he also ignores the popularity of Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and other architects and philosophers as drivers of German popular opinion.
In addition Bindidon ignores: ”The conservative elite were the old ruling class and new business class in Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s they became increasingly frustrated with the Weimar Republics continuing economic and political instability, their lack of real power and the rise of communism. They believed that a return to authoritarian rule was the only stable future for Germany which would protect their power and money.”
today in the US this conservative elite is represented by big tech, celebrities, multi-nationalist corporations, especially holders of monopoly property rights being sold internationally. . .they are in the business of trading jobs for cash for the rich.
Hunter boy
All you are able to do is to paste some info, e.g. coming from
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-role-of-the-conservative-elite/
*
To you too, I thus repeat
1. The Nazis began dismantling the already very weak German democracy already before 1933, and destroyed it immediately after they won the majority in the Reichstag.
2. You too definitely ignore how the Nazis finally got to power.
The reason for this was that they were tactically clever in exacerbating German resentment at the extreme humiliation of their country by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, after losing the First World War.
Final point.
*
It’s amazing to read how clever the Hunter boy writes about things he doesn’t have a bit of a clue of.
binny…”You too definitely ignore how the Nazis finally got to power”.
***
We now how they did it, using brutality. They physically intimidated people into accepting them. There are climate alarmists today who would do the same thing if they could get away with it.
Bindidon said:
”All you are able to do is to paste some info, e.g. coming from
Its amazing to read how clever the Hunter boy writes about things he doesnt have a bit of a clue of.”
——————-
you seem to be somewhat confused Bin. am i writing or pasting a source?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bindidon also said:
”The Nazis began dismantling the already very weak German democracy already before 1933”
—————————
is this when the Gestapo was pulling the teeth and nails out of their political rivals?
is there any reason why i should believe a word you say? do you actually have any reason to consider the The Wiener Holocaust Library unreliable?
Bill, you need to be a bit careful there, you know.
The next thing you know, Binny will turn up on your doorstep, kitted out in high peaked cap, jodhpurs, highly polished riding boots, and smiting his thighs with a steel-reinforced riding crop!.
If you’re lucky, he’ll only pull out your teeth and nails, and forego subjecting you to agonising slow death from disease, while applying high voltage electrodes to your sensitive parts. He’s threatened to do that with people who disagreed with him in the past.
The worst torture that Binny could inflict, would be to subject you to an endless loop of the “Political Thoughts of Bindidon” played at screeching volume, while being forced to stare at an endless progression of brightly coloured graphs predicting The End of the World!
Scary.
I rather doubt that. Bin obviously views his role as some kind of heroic defense of science details that he hasn’t yet identified as dogma and all that tends to arise from that.
Bill,
Dang! You’ve punctured my fantasy!
You are right, of course. Bindidon seems both incompetent and impotent.
Well you might not be too far off. Colonel Klink fits that description also.
Usual sloppy terminology.
So many eejits, especially among the denialists, don’t know the difference between a glacial period and an Ice Age.
Wiki:
“An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth’s climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the ice age called Quaternary glaciation. Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.”
colloquial:
–(of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.
“colloquial and everyday language”–
Use in sentence:
New York Times writers will always use colloquial language when they do the sciency stuff.
Wiki is indulging in fantasy.
“Earths climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet.”
So the planet cools, heats up, cools, heats up . . . – due to a magic spell, no doubt.
No other physical reason is proffered.
— Swenson says:
December 9, 2023 at 9:42 PM
Wiki is indulging in fantasy.
Earths climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet.–
I make no claim, wiki is correct. But rather that everyone knows we are in an Ice Age.
No one here we argue the point, but many here and elsewhere seem to ignore the elephant.
I would argue even in the warmest time, warmest greenhouse global climate, Earth still has glaciers. but it does not always have vast ice sheets.
I don’t anyone will argue about that.
What they and I might argue about is how fast Earth could lose a significant amount of it’s current ice sheets.
For example, we aren’t going to get an ocean with average ocean temperature increasing from about 3.5 C to 5 C, anytime within 1000 years. But if our was 5 C, it would be a Huge amount of global warming, but even in that extreme state, it seems it would take a long time to reduce Earth’s sheet mass by much within such short period as a century of time.
gb,
You wrote –
“I make no claim, wiki is correct.” Sorry for the semantic gymnastics, but you are claiming that Wiki is correct – without saying why you believe it to be so.
I’m not aware of any physical reason for the Earth to cool, warm, cool, warm, etc. if you are, could you please tell me what it is.
SkyDragon cultists just insinuate that the Earth heats up and cools down under the influence (or not) of a GHE which is never actually described. That way, heating, cooling, droughts and floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and everything from haemorrhoids to halitosis can be blamed on a GHE which is never actually described!
Even peer reviewed papers published in prestigious journals claim that cooling in certain areas of the globe is due to a “negative greenhouse effect”! I kid you not.
Wiki is indulging in fantasy – or is guilty of fraud – take your pick.
–Im not aware of any physical reason for the Earth to cool, warm, cool, warm, etc. if you are, could you please tell me what it is. —
Gordon Robertson doesn’t believe in plate tectonic, but I do.
It’s a new theory certainly newer than the cargo cult. I think there is a lot more to know about it.
I think lunar exploration led to it, and further lunar exploration will be more helpful in understanding it.
gb,
Maybe you could explain how plate tectonics could alternately cool and heat the planet. I’m not aware of any evidence that supports planet-wide heating or cooling, but maybe such exists.
So called “ice ages”, may just be due to chaotic changes in the atmosphere, aquasphere and lithosphere, resulting in energy redistribution within the Earth system.
Glaciers increase and decrease, mountains rise and fall, continents roam where they will. Tales of “snowball Earth” are about as well supported as the existence of the Kraken – belief rather than fact.
I am open to suggestion, but all I see s far is a lot of wishful thinking supported by vigorous hand-waving.
— Swenson says:
December 10, 2023 at 9:31 PM
gb,
Maybe you could explain how plate tectonics could alternately cool and heat the planet. Im not aware of any evidence that supports planet-wide heating or cooling, but maybe such exists.–
Well, that the Antarctic continent moved to south pole, and Greenland has moved more northward poleward. Kind of simply indicate why they have Ice Sheets. But, broadly it’s geological changes that cool the ocean.
I would say the world planet Earth has been changing into different worlds.
There various ideas/theories how our changing world has cooled the ocean- it’s more of list of things rather than a thing. But changes of Earth which changed circulation of the tropical ocean, the isolation between Atlantic and Pacific ocean. And India crashing into Asia, effects that circulation plus it’s creation of Himalayas was change global air circulation {global weather}.
PBS, Nova: The Big chill:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
Characterizes it.
As does Wiki: Greenhouse and icehouse Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
That the colder ocean has lowered dramatically CO2 levels, is something cargo cult is more interested in. But that oceans are so cold {maybe the coldest it’s ever been} doesn’t seem to be of much interest to the cargo cult.
CAGW is all about having warmer ocean.
It seems one was worried about our very cold ocean, warming, one would be excessively interested in exploring the ocean.
A,
You are referring to something like this particularly misleading piece of rubbish, are you?
“The Planck feedback or Planck response is the comparable radiative response obtained from analysis of practical observations or global climate models (GCMs).”
Whoever wrote that was thinking that fantasy could substitute for reality!
Are you really that gullible?
You quoted wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
Are you really that gullible?
You are referring to something like this particularly misleading piece of rubbish, are you?
“The Planck feedback or Planck response is the comparable radiative response obtained from analysis of practical observations or global climate models (GCMs).”
Are you saying that you are referring to some other misleading piece of rubbish?
Maybe you are talking about “The Planck feedback represented by the negative of our reference parameter is not really a feedback at all.”
All very confusing – if you say nothing definite, you can always whine that you didn’t say anything definite if someone queries your insinuations! A sewer rat is more cunning, and possibly more intelligent.
swenson…you are right, Planck feedback, like the word forcing, is part of climate model jargon.
SpaceX Finally Dropped the Big Starship Reveal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28youVDbK1s
I am getting more confident SpaceX will get the 3rd test launch of Starship this year. And then next year, get many Starship launches, and anything close to 10 Starship launch in a year, would count as “many”. It wasn’t very long ago when I thought 10 rocket launches a year was many, and idea of 10 launch of biggest rocket ever made per year is mind blowing. Of course getting 100 Starship launches per year is not enough as far as Musk is concerned.
But it seems one has to launch from the ocean to get 100 or more launches of Starship per year. But a company like Rocket lab might do 100 launches of their medium size rocket next year [or the year later}. And SpaceX will get a hundred or more of Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy, next year. So, having one rocket company doing hundred launches per year is insane, but we could have a few rocket companies doing this- which is radical shift of entire industry, which probably will be continuously, shifting as the years roll by.
What shouldn’t be surprising is that “big money” is going to become more involved- Musk may be richest guy in would, but he is not “big money”. And this should happening around the time of SpaceX starts launching from the Ocean. And that could be before we put crew on the lunar south pole.
Or crew landing is probably going to happen before NASA thinks it’s going to be.
This is a good one
https://youtu.be/Cm0ARggsQWA
Dietrich (Steve Landesberg) was cool. The guys asks him if he knew the polar ice cap was increasing at 40 feet a year. Dietrich replied, “Yes…I did”.
” An even more interesting problem is how hot it really was during the Medieval Warm Period before the Little Ice Ag reduced the global average enough to drive the Vikings out of southern Greenland. ”
*
The Vikings didn’t leave Greenland because of the incoming LIA.
They did this because their primary occupation during the whole MWP was hunting walruses for their ivory.
Increasing conflicts with the indigenous Greenlandic population due to Vikings’ walrus overkill and the emerging elephant ivory trade with North Africa in southern Europe finally put an end to their activity in Greenland.
Vikings hunting walrus? I guess they started farming to feed the walrus.
Thank you for providing him facts.
LOL
I’d not heard of it either but there is apparently evidence they did a lot of walrus hunting on Greenland.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180807192842.htm
yes…but they lived on farms and farmed on the farms. That’s why they left, it got too cold to grow food. Same thing happened in the Scottish Highlands in the 1790s as well as in North America, as far south as modern day Florida and Texas. All of that due to the Little Ice Age.
Yes,
Gordo, the Norse in Greenland hunted Walrus. They traded their tusks to pay for their essential needs, as they were a colony of Norway. After the elephants from Africa became available to supply the ivory trade, the Greenland Norse lost a market for their products. The trade in smoked cod also dried up as well. Their farming techniques were adapted from Iceland and Norway, which did not fit well in the colder environment in Greenland. Besides, where did they find the wood to build boats, as their older ones rotted?
Lots of evidence about their disappearance, but no firm cause has been established, IMHO.
They left Greenland when it got too cold to grow barley with which to make beer.
Not enough walrus isn’t a reason to leave a home. By contrast, a lack of beer is a deal breaker.
the glacial advances entombing of their homes in blocks of ice for 700 years had very little effect on them; demonstrating very clearly just how adaptable mankind is to climate change. bindidon insists it was due to inadequate walrus harvest management. can’t argue against that at all.
Re ENSO forecasting, the average of dynamical models forecasting in August has closely tracked NINO3.4 observations so far.
https://i.imgur.com/5PvSMGn.png
The statistical models have not fared well this season.
I have enjoyed posting on Roy’s site the past several years but it has reached a point where posting is becoming far too difficult. There are serious thing wrong with the software on the site, partly due to Roy’s penchant for banning certain words. I simply lack the time and interest trying to keep up with what can be posted and what cannot.
It is plain silly having to spend half an hour editing a post to get it to post. Roy doesn’t like the word trohl so I can’t post a word like controhling or controhler. The correct spelling should be obvious from my mangling of the word trohl.
There have been times when I have pared a post down, word by word, and it still would not post.
an example…
Planck f.e.e.d.b.a.c.k is an o.x.y.m.o.r.o.n and it is b.a.s.e.d on the p.s.e.u.d.o-s.c.i.e.n.t.i.f.i.c a.n.a.l.o.g.y to r.e.a.l f.e.e.d.b.a.c.k as e.x.p.l.a.i.n.e.d in this a..r.t.i.c.l.e…
https://tinyurl.com/mpuvabn9
There is not a single word in that post on Roy’s banned list.
Just a minute…there is…m.o.r.o.n
So…I cannot use a legitimate word like oxy.m.o.r.o.n because that other word is banned.
OK…here’s the rest of my post…
The article, and those who believe in such pseudo-science, simply don’t get it that an amplification of heat requires an amplifier capable of amplifying heat. In the article, they liken atmospheric feedback to feedback in an amplifier and they even talk about related gain. Then they apply the inane concep.t of feedback without an amplifier.
Read my lips…no amplifier, no positive feedback. It is that ludicrously simply.
Why they call it Planck feedback is not at all apparent unless, like the ijits who don’t understand real feedback, they have no idea what Planck stated in his equation. Planck’s work had nothing to do with feedbacks, it is strictly about emissions from a body.
What they have done in the article is confuse a form of positive and negative feedback used in servo systems with the amplifying feedback used in electronic circuits to control the gain of an amplifier. In the former, the ‘sign’ of a voltage feedback is used as an indicator to tell a contrroller whether to increase the current to a load or decrease it. Amplification is not a factor. In the latter. they amplify a signal then feed a portion of it back to augment or detract from the input signal hence contrrolling the gain of the amplifier.
Obviously, alarmists who come up with concep.ts like Planck’s feedback have no idea what they are talking about.
christos…”[to Binny]…Very interesting article you gave me. I already translated it (mechanically) and started reading it carefully”.
Re the article…
[Binny]Years ago, I read this document, written in German:
https://www.physik.uni-jena.de/pafmedia/dokumente/samstagsvorlesungen/erderwaermung-zum-nachrechnen.pdf
***
Christos…I translated enough of the article to understand the writer has no idea what he is talking about. Although he has a degree in astronomy, he is a typical astronomer, he understands a little bit about some physics but nothing about physics in general.
His opening statements refer back to the 19th century to Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, then he moves into the 20th to Keeling. This lays the alarmist foundation for their pseudo-science, that provides no proof that a trace gas is warming the planet but only a vague inference.
The author claims Fourier was a mathematician, which is correct, then he infers that claims made by Fourier about warming in the atmosphere is correct while also claiming that he was wrong. The author states…”Therefore, his thoughts on this problem, published from 1824 onwards, are essentially wrong…”. However, the author leans on a comment by Fourier that the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse.
Ta da!!! The GHE is born.
Then he moves on to Tyndall, revealing how he discovered that certain gases can absorb infrared energy but supplies no proof that Tyndall’s proof applies to the atmosphere. The author claims about Tyndall…”Using specially invented apparatus, Tyndall measured the absor-p-tion of thermal radiation by the components of the atmosphere…”
Here the key phrase is ‘thermal radiation’, the next building block for the alarmist dogma. They always relate radiation to heat, even though thermal energy and electromagnetic radiation have nothing in common. However, by associating radiation and heat in the minds of the naive, they can later claim that radiation is heat and use that lie to undermine the 2nd law, wherein heat is allowed to be transferred cold to hot by its own means in the atmosphere.
Then the author moves on to Arrhenius who he claims brought the previous theories together. The author claims,…”Arrhenius
was also the first to predict a rise in temperature as a result of humanity’s CO2 emissions. He estimated that a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase of 5C”.
Note: still no scientific proof just inference based on unproved theory.
The author then claims that Arhenius offered a robust theory even though it was held in dispute. The author carries on…”This dispute was decided by Charles Keeling 50 years later, 25 years after Arrhenius’ death”.
What did Keeling prove? He proved there is CO2 in the atmosphere that appears to increase each year. However, he noted that the amount of CO2 varies seasonally. Still no connection between the amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere and warming.
This is the alarmist approach…offer suggestions with no connection between them and infer an outcome. Then, through consensus, arrive at an agreement that a problem has been solved. It’s all very naive and immature and the IPCC specializes in that immaturity.
To be continued…
The author now tried to define heat…
“Today, physicists differentiate between thermal energy and heat. If an object has a lot of thermal energy it is hot, otherwise it is cold. You would say that the object then has heat? No, heat is strictly speaking the transport of energy in which no mechanical) work is carried out. Is it too abstract for you? It doesn’t matter, physicists don’t take it too seriously in everyday life – they’re just human”.
Seriously confused. He reveals that physicists don’t take it very seriously. Obviously not. The author claims that heat is ‘strictly’ the transport of energy in which no mechanical work is done. I told you that astronomers are not good at physics.
If there is thermal energy in a body and it is transported to another body by some means, what kind of energy is being transported. If I have apples in a barrel and I transport them to another barrel, what is being transported? Apples!!! So why is it that thermal energy transported to another body is now regarded as ‘energy’, but in the initial body it was not heat, but thermal energy. How did the thermal energy become just plain ‘energy’ that is being transported by the eqeally mysterious, redefined definition of heat?
And what does work have to do with it? If heat is transferred and work is done is it different than heat transferred when no work is done? No…heat is a different form of energy than mechanical energy and they have little in common.
The author now goes on to tell another lie. He claims “What I’m getting at is: There are three forms of heat transport”. He is now claiming that heat is transported and he just finished telling us that heat does the transporting. If heat is transported, I presume he means transferred, then there must have been heat in the body that he calls thermal energy. At least, Clausius claimed that but this guy conveniently does not mention the father of the the 2nd law, entropy, and the definition of U in the 1st law.
If heat is the transporting agent then what is it transporting? Being German, maybe this guy has trouble understanding English. When something is being transported, that something it is not the transporting agent. That implies that something is transporting itself. Therefore, in that vernacular, heat is transporting heat.
Duh!!! How this guy got a Ph.D is the real question.
He claims…
“(i) Heat conduction: When a hot body is joined with a cold one, the cold body becomes warmer and the hot body becomes colder”.
No… heat is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. However, that does not serve alarmists well since they need to maintain a separation between heat and radiation. By redefining heat in a mysterious manner, it serves to confuse people into believing the anthropogenic theory.
Heat is energy, case closed.
He saves the best for last…
“(iii) Thermal radiation: This is much more abstract, although we all know and it is even common usage that hot bodies radiate heat. Thermal radiation differs from conduction and convection in that no matter is required to transport heat. If we pumped the air between the stove and the sofa, the stove would still be comfortable radiate heat”.
Utterly confused. No wonder he regards it as abstract. Hot bodies do not radiate heat, they radiate electromagnetic energy (EM). If nothing intercept that radiation nothing can warm. Therefore the stove cannot pump heat, only radiation. The author is confused between radiation and heat dissipation.
The properties of EM are very different than the properties of heat. EM has no mass and is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. It has a frequency. Heat has no frequency and cannot exist without mass. The two energies have nothing in common, yet this yoyo is calling EM thermal radiation.
What he has done essentially is skip from the mid-19th century directly to the 21st century while ignoring the body of work we now call quantum theory, which relates EM to electrons in matter and heat. In the days of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius, scientists believed that heat could flow through air as heat rays. That appears to be still the current belief of modern scientists like the author, as well as people like Binny and other alarmists.
to be continued…
Thus far, the author is laying his deluded theories for Stefan=Boltzmann, Planck, and ultimately, the energy budget propaganda. He begins by crediting someone named Mayer for discovering that agitated water will warm. It was actually Joule who made this discover, associating mechanical work in joules to heat in calories. However, we shall allow the author his ego trip.
The author then credits Mayer with discovering the law of conservation of energy and the claim that energy can neither be crated nor destroyed. How the heck can anyone make such an inference, especially from an unknown who likely never experimented in this realm nor who was aware of the relationship between heat and EM?The author even credits Meyer with preforming an experiment that determined the amount of heat produced in water by mechanical agitation.
It was Joule who did that, Not Meyer, but hey, why allow fact to get in the way of a good story? It was Joule who produced the equation relating mechanical energy to heat, which is measured in calories, not joules. Joules can be equivalent to calories but never equal.
Next he moves into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. “Every hot (or just warm) body emits radiation in the form of light and thermal
radiation. Light or heat radiation physically there is no fundamental difference between the two”.
Duh!!! Every hot/warm body emits light??? Light is a reference to visible EM. No one refers to an x-ray as light or infrared for that fact. Radio waves or microwaves are not referred to as light. And…’there is no difference between ‘heat radiation’ and light???’ This is an astronomer talking folks, he claims there is no difference between heat and light.
This is where the anthropogenic theory falls flat on its face, those defending it are seriously short on the understanding of basic physics. The author claims Tyndall laid the groundwork for quantum theory and that is nonsense. Tyndall thought heat flowed through space as heat rays, as did every other scientist of his era. Quantum theory is based on a much newer and vastly different science.
The author goes on to murder S-B by incorrectly mistaking radiation for heat. He then goes on to associate this tommy-rot with a mysterious energy budget. He applies all the consensus-based theory, with no proof, to arrive at a pseudo-scientific theory that trace gases are creating n imbalance in the temperature of the Earth.
He bases his arguments on the same flaws as Trenberth-Kiehle, where low energy back-radiation is producing more heat at the surface as solar energy with a very high energy source.
I wrote above…”…that does not serve alarmists well since they need to maintain a separation between heat and radiation. By redefining heat in a mysterious manner, it serves to confuse people into believing the anthropogenic theory”.
It should have read…
“that does not serve alarmists well since they need to maintain a CONNECTION between heat and radiation. By redefining heat in a mysterious manner, it serves to confuse people into believing the anthropogenic theory”.
What I mean is this….The AGW theory depends on the existence of a back-radiation, from colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, that is capable of warming the surface, in fact, raising the temperature above the temperature it is heated by solar energy. The entire theory depends on this because it regards back-radiation as adding to solar energy.
The energy budget theory of Treberth-Kiehle also depends on this theory.
That is the alarmist fundamental explanation for an alleged positive water vapour feedback whereby WV increases as the surface warms. More WV, more warming.
The theory collapses if heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, and that collapse is confirmed by the 2nd law, which stipulates that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means from cold to hot.
Gordon,
“Hot bodies do not radiate heat, they radiate electromagnetic energy (EM). If nothing intercept that radiation nothing can warm. Therefore the stove cannot pump heat, only radiation. The author is confused between radiation and heat dissipation.
The properties of EM are very different than the properties of heat. EM has no mass and is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. It has a frequency. Heat has no frequency and cannot exist without mass. The two energies have nothing in common, yet this yoyo is calling EM thermal radiation.”
–
Also, I would like to add, the low temperature bodies have much less heat, and, therefore, they are not capable to emit their, according to Stefan-Boltzmann emmission law, the respective intensity EM radiation, those that the S-B law dictates.
–
And that is why, when S-B law is applied to planets and moons the IR emission intensities, the S-B respective to their absolute temperatures, the result is very much mistaken.
Thus we have the laughable 255K (-18C) emitting the impossible
240 W/m^2 !!!
–
Conclusion:
The S-B emission law application is limited by the energy a body is capable to give up.
If a body is over-loaded with energy, the energy is pouring out by EM radiation according to the S-B emission law, because at the emitting surface there is an instant equilibrium of energy transfer gets established – and establishing that equilibrium is what the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is all about.
–
When there is much less energy in the body (at lower temperatures), it cannot support the IR emission intensity the S-B emission law dictates to emit at body’s respective low temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, for less than $15, you can end your confusion about the S/B Law.
https://www.amazon.com/Etekcity-Thermometer-774-Temperature-Accessories/dp/B0B71HFH9K/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1Y1AZF6QSB81G&keywords=ir%2Bthermometer%2Bgun&qid=1702228153&sprefix=ir%2Bther%2Caps%2C173&sr=8-3&th=1
clint..the IR meter to which you link has nothing to do with S-B. It is dependent on actual temperature measurements in a lab in which a voltage level corresponding to the frequency of IR is taken directly and programmed into the meter’s PROM memory. The programmed levels represent a voltage produced in similar semiconductor material under lab conditions.
When the meter receives an IR frequency, not a temperature, it looks up the laboratory voltage level in memory the frequency produces in a semiconductor material used as a detector and compares it to the detected result. The meter is not interested in the intensity of IR produced at a temperature, as in S-B, it is interested only in IR frequency generated by a body. There is no frequency component in S-B.
When a semiconductor material which responds to IR frequencies is excited by an IR frequency, it responds by changing the current running through a semiconductor junction. The specific relationship between that junction and the frequency exciting it is determined in a lab, therefore the relationship is known. That current has no meaning unless it is compared to a known value, stored in memory.
Many explanations rave on about thermopyles and how a variation in temperature can affect the thermopyle, but those claims are seriously in error for a handheld unit, they apply only to direct measurement at higher temperatures. A handheld requires only a frequency as the exciter.
To prove that, you can hold a handheld and point it at a higher temperature source which would burn a hand or the meter itself. The handheld is not interested in the temperature of the body, only the frequency of IR it emits. Therefore the detector unit responds only to frequency, not temperature. In higher temperature applications, where the heat can be felt directly, thermopyles can be used.
The S-B equation is not used at all. To use S-B, you would have to have a means of comparing the IR frequency to something. In the original Tyndall experiment, they had various colours, representing known EM frequencies, produced by different current levels running through a platinum filament wire. What would you use in the invisible IR band to get similar results?
Gordon, we don’t need all that rambling garbage to know you don’t understand any of this.
A flux does NOT have a frequency! A flux consists of photons, all with different frequencies.
Even a cheap IR thermometer is accurate to +/- 1°F. S/B works.
“which a voltage level corresponding to the frequency of IR is taken directly and programmed into the meters PROM memory.”
No Gordon, you just made all of that up. Because these devices use thermopiles, which don’t measure frequency at all. They measure IR flux over a broad range of wavelengths.
I guess Nate doesn’t know that wavelengths are a measure of frequency and that he thinks the charts showing outgoing frequencies are just total BS and guessed at.
Bill you are not making any sense.
I understand very well how these devices work, while you and Gordon clearly do not.
Nate denies that wavelength is a measure of radiation frequency!
You are highly confused.
The devices measure neither frequency or wavelength. They measure FLUX.
Gordo repeated his usual mantra:
But, as Gordo wrote above:
So the situation of radiation heat transfer occurs where a mass radiates IR, thereby losing internal “heat”, then another mass intercepts that IR radiation, increasing it’s internal “heat”. Gordo’s claim continues to fail by ignoring what happens to the thermal IR radiation emitted by the colder body.
Riddle me this, Gordo. You find yourself in some very cold location in central Canada during mid-winter. You are enjoying the warmth inside a heated structure. You make a phone call on you cell phone, using EM radiation between a local cell tower and your smarty phone. So, how come this is possible, as the transmission from the very cold surface of the cell antenna emits energy from a surface which is considerably colder than your phone? According to your warped theory, the EM signal could not be intercepted by the warm phone.
You don’t realise that the EM radiation from an electronic oscillator are not being produced as a result of natural emission of photons from electrons due to a body being above absolute zero.
Or maybe you do, but you are just trying to be annoying. In any case, you appear ignorant rather than intelligent.
An intelligent individual who believes in a GHE would at least be able to describe the GHE, which you can’t.
Either you don’t really believe in a GHE, or you are not particularly intelligent.
Others can form their own views, of course.
“the EM signal could not be intercepted by the warm phone.”
The EM signal could not warm the warm phone.
Cold doesn’t warm something warm.
Though if compress “cold” mars air, it can become hot air- which can warm less hot things.
Earth Air molecules are traveling faster than a bullet, Mars air also traveling faster than a bullet, but Mars air is a lot less dense.
One can easily make Mars air more dense and make have a temperature which is hot.
So 15 C air at 1 atm pressure is cold air.
But you could say Earth air is even colder, but when it’s at 1 atm of
pressure and 15 C, it’s just cold.
The cold Earth atmosphere is warmer when it’s at sea level pressure.
But it’s colder in an Ice Age when it’s average surface sea level pressure 15 C.
Of course average 15 C and averaging night and day temperature so night is much colder than 15 C. And humans die at night, unless they
wearing lots insulation and/or heating the air.
Animals can’t do this, and they run away from the cold winter nights or die.
gb,
You wrote –
“Animals cant do this, and they run away from the cold winter nights or die.”
Unless they are adapted to conditions – penguins in Antarctica, walruses, polar bears etc.
Even humans wearing animal skins (various furs) manage OK, if they can keep out of the wind. A bit of heat from burning hydrocarbons makes life more comfortable, too.
No problem adapting to Mars, if man can live in space (or the Antarctic, for that matter).
Who wants to, and who pays? The second might be a significant problem.
The future will tell.
swannie…old boy…you are confusing different forms of EM created by different means. Radiation of EM from ice is based on the activity of electrons in the orbitals of frozen water molecules. Radiation used in communications systems is based on the frequency of electrical currents in an antenna.
In other words, comm circuits depend on the activity of free electrons while ice emissions depend on electrons bound to an orbit in an atom. Different concepts altogether and as different as apples and oranges.
The cult is still confused about flux. They continue to believe flux is energy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571981
That’s OK. It just confirms, once again, they don’t know anything about physics.
Other than a few rare occasions, when Clint comments about science he is wrong. In this case, nothing in my earlier post confuses flux (W/m^2) with energy (J).
Clint is welcome to explain WHY he thinks my comments about flux are instead comments about energy.
Tim Folkets
Your attempt to educate posters with real and valid science are commendable. You will find you cannot hope to educate Clint R, Gordon Robertson or Swenson. Good luck with you if you can teach them.
Folkerts, the link was to the start of your nonsense. You need to go on down where you’re talking about “energy”:
“For the earth as a whole, the degree of balance is quite good. Over the course of a year, the imbalance is typically within 1 W/m^2 (out of ~ 240 W/m^2 in and ~ 240 W/m^2 out).”
Flux ain’t energy. If someone asked you how far you had to go to get to the closest grocery store, would you respond with “40 mph”?
Flux ain’t energy just like speed ain’t distance.
But, it’s even worse. Flux is a “rate” through an area. Even more complicated that just a rate.
Tim,
You didn’t really write –
For the earth as a whole, the degree of balance is quite good. Over the course of a year, the imbalance is typically within 1 W/m^2 (out of ~ 240 W/m^2 in and ~ 240 W/m^2 out)”, did you?
Well, gee. I didn’t realise that climate scientists accept “quite good” as having any particular useful meaning at all.
Your babbling about “energy balance” is bizarre. There is no “energy balance” Tim, that’s just a product of your strange fantasy. You obviously have little to no understanding of the laws of thermodynamics if you are prepared to utter such nonsensical garbage.
The Earth is continuously losing energy, at the rate of about 44 TW. This energy leaves the “Earth system” whichever way you try to obfuscate your way out of it. The Earth no longer has a molten surface, as a result of more energy leaving the system than entering it. This phenomenon is known as “cooling” – obviously a word not in your cultist vocabulary.
You didnt like Feynman’s admonition about conservation of energy ” First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out. “, but there it is – and true, whether you agree or not!
If you really believed in a GHE, you would at least be able to describe it. You refuse, and that makes you a fraud. A faker, who has knowingly been insinuating that a GHE with magical warming powers exists – without actually saying so!
You’re busted, Timmy. Anyone who gets taken in by your fake pseudo-science is even more unintelligent than you. Luckily, a minority of the population.
Wriggle away.
Mike Flynn,
You replied to Pupman.
Cheers.
Thanks, Willard. You’re right – readers might think that “Tim” is just another of your fantasy creations, like Mike Flynn, Pupman, and all the others. I have therefore redone my comment to make it clear that I am addressing Tim Folkerts, not one of your fantasy creations.
Tim Folkerts,
You didnt really write
“For the earth as a whole, the degree of balance is quite good. Over the course of a year, the imbalance is typically within 1 W/m^2 (out of ~ 240 W/m^2 in and ~ 240 W/m^2 out)”, did you?
Well, gee. I didnt realise that climate scientists accept quite good as having any particular useful meaning at all.
Your babbling about “energy balance” is bizarre. There is no “energy balance” Tim, thats just a product of your strange fantasy. You obviously have little to no understanding of the laws of thermodynamics if you are prepared to utter such nonsensical garbage.
The Earth is continuously losing energy, at the rate of about 44 TW. This energy leaves the “Earth system” whichever way you try to obfuscate your way out of it. The Earth no longer has a molten surface, as a result of more energy leaving the system than entering it. This phenomenon is known as cooling obviously a word not in your cultist vocabulary.
You didnt like Feynmans admonition about conservation of energy “First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.”, but there it is and true, whether you agree or not!
If you really believed in a GHE, you would at least be able to describe it. You refuse, and that makes you a fraud. A faker, who has knowingly been insinuating that a GHE with magical warming powers exists without actually saying so!
Youre busted, Timmy. Anyone who gets taken in by your fake pseudo-science is even more unintelligent than you. Luckily, a minority of the population.
Wriggle away.
Mike Flynn,
You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572683
Please use threading lightly
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Please use threading lightly”
What are you babbling about? What particular form of mental deficiency leads you to think that I’m likely to assign the slightest value to your worthless opinions?
You might do well to consult with your other wannabe moderators (Bindidon, for example), and figure out how to stop people like myself laughing at your ineffectual posturing. You don’t seem to accept that you are completely impotent in regard to what I say, how I say it, and where I say it!
Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue, or petulantly stamping your little foot on the floor, is not likely to force me to accede to your wishes. I will likely laugh all the more loudly, as I show your comments to my colleagues!
Do carry on, Willard, you are a never-ending source of amusement to many. Others may choose to cry, or at least sob quietly.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:”
Of course, a fantasist who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy would say that, wouldn’t he?
Do you really expect me to believe a madman who is convinced he is sane? That’s how you know they are mad! Just like you claiming that figments of your imagination are not figments of you imagination.
Maybe you should just quit while you’re behind.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s Pupman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343511
You should know – you commented on that thread!
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:”
Of course, a fantasist who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy would say that, wouldnt he?
Do you really expect me to believe a madman who is convinced he is sane? Thats how you know they are mad! Just like you claiming that figments of your imagination are not figments of you imagination.
Maybe you should just quit while youre behind.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Do you really expect me”
I only expect you to continue braying:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/canadian-prairie-soybean-increase-not-due-to-global-warming/#comment-343153
Looks like you already were going “off with the fairies” by then!
Cheers.
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:”
Of course, a fantasist who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy would say that, wouldnt he?
Do you really expect me to believe a madman who is convinced he is sane? Thats how you know they are mad! Just like you claiming that figments of your imagination are not figments of you imagination.
Maybe you should just quit while you’re behind.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s you, vintage 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-287342
Keep braying!
You wrote
Mike Flynn,
You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:”
Of course, a fantasist who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy would say that, wouldnt he?
Do you really expect me to believe a madman who is convinced he is sane? Thats how you know they are mad! Just like you claiming that figments of your imagination are not figments of you imagination.
Maybe you should just quit while youre behind.
Mike Flynn,
Heres you, vintage 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295438
Keep braying!
You wrote
Mike Flynn,
“You are not the figment of my imagination.
Neither is Pupman:”
Of course, a fantasist who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy would say that, wouldnt he?
Do you really expect me to believe a madman who is convinced he is sane? Thats how you know they are mad! Just like you claiming that figments of your imagination are not figments of you imagination.
Maybe you should just quit while you’re behind.
Or you could come up with something useful – a statement of what your indescribable GHE is supposed to do! How hard can it be?
You already brayed that, Mike.
“The Earth is continuously losing energy, at the rate of about 44 TW.”
While these heat flows WITHIN the earth are interesting in their own right, they are NOT particularly germane to climate. This 0.1 W/m^2 is dwarfed in the atmosphere by other energy flows.
“The Earth no longer has a molten surface, as a result of more energy leaving the system than entering it. ”
Again true but not germane to climate. The average energy flow over the past 4.5 billion years is certainly out of the earth and has certainly resulted in an overall cooling of the core, mantle and crust over the past 4.5 billion years.
But that does not tell us what happened to the air above the earth (or the top few meters of rock or the water in the oceans) in the past day or year or century. Temperatures in the atmosphere that are germane to climate have been rising, despite your interest in the earth 4 billion years ago.
“Flux aint energy. … But, its even worse. Flux is a “rate” through an area. “
You seem to have overlooked that both a time (1 year) and an area (the earth’s surface) are specified. For our situation, an imbalanced flux of 1 W/m^2 corresponds to an imbalanced energy of
1 W/m^2 * (3.16 x10^7 s) * (5.1 x10^14 m^2) = 1.6 x10^22 J
every year.
I assumed people knew how to do such basic calculations. The answer was given as a flux only because 1 watt per square meter is more intuitive for most people than a total energy of 16,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J.
“The Earth is continuously losing energy, at the rate of about 44 TW.”
Whoah, that is a big impressive number! I had no idea.
I wonder what the solar input is?
So 240 W/m^2 x area of the Earth, which is 4pi*(6,400,000 m)^2 = 1.2×10^17 W.
Which is 120,000 TW.
That is much bigger more impressive number.
tim…energy cannot be measured for the simple reason no one knows what it is. All we can measure is the effect energy has on a body or substance. Therefore, flux is not a measure of energy, it is a human definition of an unknown quantity.
Suppose you want to measure the intensity of a flux field of electromagnetic energy. You would place an antenna in the field with the antenna connected to electronics that could measure a current produced by the EM field when it us induced in the antenna and produces a current in it. The only indication you have of the invisible EM field is that current in the measuring device.
That current is not really related to the EM field per se because it represents an unknown phenomenon (induction of an electric current) of the effect of the EM flux field on the antenna. Same with temperature. The measure of temperature on a thermometer scale is a result of the expansion of mercury in a narrow vial. From that perspective, there is no such thing as temperature, it is nothing more than the expansion of mercury cause by air molecules bombarding the vial bulb containing mercury. The scale itself was invented by humans based on the freezing and boiling points of water.
Therefore a flux is nothing more than a human invention that represents an unknown entity called energy. In fact, Newton invented the word as ‘fluxions’. He was referring to the instantaneous change of ‘something’ and that instantaneous change became the basis of differential calculus.
Think about it. If you have a body moving at so many metres per second and it has an instantaneous change of velocity, which is acceleration, what does that mean physically and how do you measure it? You invent an artificial entity called time.
This “human invention” is predictable, and is used in engineering projects across the world, materials science, astronomy, forensics, lighting, energy efficiency design, solar panels etc etc.
The “unknown entity” is remarkably utile.
If we can’t see X or measure it directly we don’t really know much about X: this tired epistemological refrain is usually a cover for denying/rejecting something.
barry, please stop trolling.
“..Guyana is going to the Moon faster than bloody NASA…”
Venezuela, Guyana & The Essequibo Crisis – Posturing or a new Special Military Operation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSE9dPEx6Y
–LEARNING ABOUT SOME OF THE FORMERLY UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: Hidden Impacts of Ferocious Volcanic Eruption Finally Revealed.
Undersea volcanic eruptions account for more than three-quarters of all volcanism on Earth, but rarely do we see the impacts.
The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai eruption of 2022 was a dramatic exception. Its furious explosion from shallow waters broke the ocean surface and punched through the stratosphere, generating supercharged lighting and an atmospheric shock wave that circled the globe several times. . . .
Their analyses show at least 6 cubic kilometers (km3) of seafloor was lost from within the caldera 20 times the eruptive volume of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption and an additional 3.5 km3 of material was blasted out of the Hunga volcanos submerged flanks.
To put that in perspective, previous studies of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai eruption estimated that 1.9 km3 (or 2,900 megatonnes) of material was ejected into the atmosphere.
That leaves roughly four-fifths of the ejected material in the ocean; material that was funneled into fast-moving density flows that scoured out tracks 30 meters deep in the seafloor and accumulated 22 meters (72 feet) thick in some places.
Almost as destructive to the planet as my SUV.
Posted at 7:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
Heh heh.
Greta Thunbergs climate crusade is heading for defeat
https://youtu.be/tqcDyHdbYd4
Turns out Greta and her minions are suffering from depression. They hate themselves, they hate the world, and they hate the future. Sounds a lot like Binny.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
> I was doing some research into the fake environmental organizations that claim to protect whales with the true intention of stopping offshore windfarms and came across Michael Shellenberger stooging for them. Odd that he thinks marine traffic and piledriving kills whales but seems to have no problem with marine traffic and drilling related to the oil industry. I guess only ships that work on windfarms kill whales. I don’t think Michael and Peter went hard enough into showing what a grifter this guy is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IfBooksCouldKill/comments/17rbo9t/running_across_shellenberger_again/
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “I dont think Michael and Peter went hard enough into showing what a grifter this guy is.”
It looks like even the people he supports don’t value his opinion.
How sad is that?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
When was the last time Richard Feynman valued your opinion, or anyone else for that matter?
Wasteful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
When was the last time Richard Feynman valued your opinion, or anyone else for that matter?”
What mental deficiency leads to believe that Mike Flynn would bother answering you?
Are you daft? You dont need to answer – of course you are!
Braying again, Mike?
No need to answer – of course you are!
Worried Wee Willy,
Thanks for the sincerest form of flattery, imitation.
Keep it up – it shows your level of intelligence.
What are you braying about, Mike?
NGOs use whales to try to stop everything. But there is good reason to stop windfarms as its the biggest boondoggle government subsidy sink ever. By the time its done Solyndra will look like a drop in the bucket.
Orsted who is the largest wind farm developer in the Uk has lost 80% of its stock value over the past 3 years. In August Orsted announced $4 billion in impairments on its investments in a single US windfarm off New Jersey.
Its almost a no brainer why.
Land wind farms and possibly some protected bay and estuary farms might eventually pencil out. But offshore is a nightmare of corrosion, maintenance, and danger to servicing crews.
and Orsted stocks are in free fall despite government subsidies approaching 50%. Orsted is by far the largest operator of offshore wind power being about as large as the next 3 combined.
Its beyond insane going all in as the administration is trying to do on this. A complete and utter waste of taxpayer dollars.
Already the industry is lobbying for better subsidies claiming a huge number of jobs and investments will be lost without government action.
https://orsted.com/en/company-announcement-list/2023/10/oersted-ceases-development-of-its-us-offshore-wind-73751
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1368762/offshore-wind-power-capacity-by-developer-worldwide/#:~:text=Orsted%20is%20the%20major%20offshore%20wind%20developer%20worldwide.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/us-offshore-wind-projects-seek-looser-subsidy-rules-fight-survival-2023-09-06/
and the announced subsidies are just the beginning. Fishermen are getting displaced as these farms go up and large areas become closed to fishing. The farms represent huge dangers to marine traffic as its a lot like building rock formations offshore which are notorious killers of marine traffic. It really is like planting giant boulders in the middle of a freeway and expecting everybody to navigate around them. In the marine zone traffic dividers are a minimum of one mile wide to give an idea of how much territory these things take up.
> NGOs use whales to try to stop everything. But
Nice bait and switch.
I’m sure Gill knows about the impact of oil spills. And there are many of them, e.g.:
https://www.itopf.org/about-us/
Shellenberger does not seem to care much about that.
oil spills are practically a non-issue. both onshore, where located near the shore (lateral drilling alone is going 3 miles to sea) and offshore drilling has greatly reduced natural oil seeps that have actually made our beaches a lot cleaner.
further the economics of fossil fuels has the ability to cover any losses sustained for all sorts activities affected.
not so for the failing offshore wind farm business. people are going to be hurt in many ways and there will be no money to cover it.
A non-issue?
https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill
“Deepwater Horizon oil spill, largest marine oil spill in history, caused by an April 20, 2010, explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig”
Nate no it wasn’t. Deepwater Horizon was the largest marine oil spill in US history. . .estimated 130 million gallons of oil.
The world’s largest oil spill was the Gulf War Oil Spill where Saddam Hussein hoping to stop coalition landings in the Persian gulf spill somewhere between 380 million and 580 million gallons of oil into the Persian gulf.
Nate still in here blabbering any kind of nonsense off the top of his head without checking any sources.
Probably another of Gill’s typos:
[GILL] oil spills are practically a non-issue
[NATE] A non-issue?
[GILL] Nate no it wasnt.
Willard isn’t even a very good obfuscator, though he keeps trying.
Gill would certainly like to backpedal and not backpedal at the same time.
Bill I’m quoting an Encyclopedia. You are quoting yourself, well known to be an unreliable source!
LOL!
Well I will then give you a pass.
But I won’t your encyclopedia.
Brittanica estimates Deepwater Horizon at 134,000,000 gallons.
And
Iraq War Oil Spill at hundreds of millions of gallons noting:
”The worlds largest known oil spill was not an accident.”
” between 380 million and 520 million gallons were poured into the gulf.”
thats almost 3 to 4 Deepwater Horizons.
Seems some of the article writers for Brittanica are more diligent than others.
https://www.britannica.com/story/9-of-the-biggest-oil-spills-in-history#:~:text=The%20Persian%20Gulf%20War%20Oil%20Spill%20(1991)&text=After%20a%20massive%20air%20and,wells%2C%20which%20burned%20for%20months.
”The worlds largest known oil spill was not an accident.”
”Iraqi forces released hundreds of millions of gallons of oil from Kuwaits Sea Island terminal into the northern Persian Gulf before the end of hostilities. (Some sources estimate that between 380 million and 520 million gallons were poured into the gulf.)”
“Shellenberger does not seem to care much about that.”
Well gee, Willard, someone has an opinion.
Don’t you believe in free speech?
Of course you don’t – you’re a fanatic worshipper of the indescribable GHE!
Gill denies that oil spills, which kill innumerable marine animals, while trying to defend Nuke Mike who’s tilting at windmills.
Meanwhile, Mike Flynn brays something. But what?
Innumerable is probably right as I have never seen anybody count them. Not because there are so many of them, but because its hard to count any kind of marine animal.
What it doesn’t do is there has never been a recorded impact on populations of these animals that put the population at unusual. risk. All you are doing Willard is emoting.
Wonky Wee Willy,
How many dinosaurs were killed by oil spills?
If you were any thicker, you’d keep tripping over yourself.
Grow up, Willard. More than 99% of all species on Earth have become extinct. That’s Nature at work. No oil spills involved.
yes and beyond that while willard is eluding to some kind of great extinction from oil spills the fact is that major oil spill events were 24 per year in the 1970’s and 1.8 per year from 2010-2019. and currently on a 1.3 per year pace this decade. a >92% reduction in 40 years and on pace for a 95% reduction in 50 years.
Mike Flynn succeeds in braying something, and Gill finally admits that his denial was in fact ignorance.
The contrarian pouting continues.
Willard lost his mind in the 1970’s and is still looking for it.
Gill almost hints at
https://climateball.net/but-70s/
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn succeeds in braying something, and Gill finally admits that his denial was in fact ignorance.
The contrarian pouting continues.”
Willard, you donkey, trying to appear intelligent by being obscure is the sort of wit‌:less behaviour exhibited by that other practitioner of obscurity, Willard Quine, who, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In practical philosophyethics and political philosophyhis contributions are negligible.”
You are having a hard time trying to rise to the level of negligible, by the look of it.
Nobody’s perfect, eh, Willard?
What are you braying about, Mike?
At least you corrected your quote.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier Tim Folkerts came up with a great list of requirements to be met, after which he was sure the temperature of an object could be ascertained by measuring the intensity of the radiation impinging on it.
Complete nonsense. For example, an object receiving 300 W/m2 by being enclosed in a sphere of ice, could never reach a temperature exceeding that of ice, if initially having a lower temperature. Nor after thermal equilibrium was reached, if initially hotter.
However, in reality, Tim looks even more dim.
The Earth is illuminated by the Sun, and the surface at any instant receives between 0 W/m2, and about 1000 W/m2.
Temperatures on the surface vary between 1200 C and -85 C, at any instant.
Even with the best will in the world, Tim finds himself retreating back into his TimmyWorld fantasy, being totally unable to justify his attempt to impose fantasy upon reality.
He seems more of a Wally than a Tim.
“Complete nonsense. For example, an object receiving 300 W/m2 by being enclosed in a sphere of ice,”
Swenson ignores Tim’s quite reasonable ‘list of requirements to be met’, doesnt meet any of them with his red-herring example, and thinks that is a sensible rebuttal!
It’s not.
Nate,
Are you so divorced from reality that you believe you can discard the laws of physics, and replace them with the fantasies of Tim Folkerts?
Go on, demonstrate your contempt for reality – tell me how surrounding a warmer object with ice radiating 300 W/m2 raises its temperature.
Is your IQ really higher than your shoe size? Tell me why you believe in things you can’t even describe – try the GHE for a start. What is it supposed to do?
Oh dear, stumped, are you?
“Go on… tell me how surrounding a warmer object with ice radiating 300 W/m2 raises its temperature.”
Suppose you have an object floating in space that receives 300 W/m^2 of flux from the sun. It will achieve a temperature of 270 K. (assuming a few basics like a blackbody surface, uniform temperature, etc).
Suppose you have an identical object floating inside a vacuum chamber whose walls are all at 270 K. It also receives 300 W/m^2 and it would also be 270 K.
Now … we open a little window so that 300 W/m^2 of sunlight comes in to the object. The object now receives 300 + 300 = 600 W/m^2 of flux, and will warm to 321 K.
And of course, if we started with the sunlight and then addend the walls, the final result would be the same. Even if the object had started at 271 K from the sunlight, adding the walls at a cooler 270 K would warm the object so that the final temp would be about 321 K.
If you disagree, tell us which SPECIFIC part you disagree with. Which temperature above do you think is incorrect, why, and what should it be?
“Earlier Tim Folkerts came up with a great list of requirements to be met, after which he was sure the temperature of an object could be ascertained by measuring the intensity of the radiation impinging on it.
Complete nonsense. For example, an object receiving 300 W/m2 by being enclosed in a sphere of ice …”
It was such a short list, yet you still clearly did not read all the way through. The object can’t be “enclosed in ice” and yet meet the requirement of “no other losses from conduction or convection”
“The Earth is illuminated by the Sun, and the surface at any instant receives between 0 W/m2, and about 1000 W/m2.
Temperatures on the surface vary between 1200 C and -85 C, at any instant.”
Again, the surface DOES have convection and conduction.
If you want to critique what I wrote, you should critique what I actually wrote. It really was a short simple list that I thought would be easy to follow.
Tim,
Don’t be silly.
I wrote –
“The Earth is illuminated by the Sun, and the surface at any instant receives between 0 W/m2, and about 1000 W/m2.
Temperatures on the surface vary between 1200 C and -85 C, at any instant.”
Regardless of any irrelevant “lists” or “conditions”. If you disagree with my statements, say why, and provide some facts to back you up. Otherwise, you might wind up looking like just another cultist, rejecting reality.
You wrote, for example –
“The object cant be “enclosed in ice” and yet meet the requirement of no other losses from conduction or convection”. The object is separated from the surrounding ice by a vacuum, just like the Sun is separated from matter surrounding it. No “conduction”. No “convection”. You don’t accept that the Sun is surrounded by matter? It’s called “the rest of the universe”. Infinite amounts, as far as anyone knows.
Jeez, Tim, pull yourself out of your fantasy. Accept reality.
“The object is separated from the surrounding ice by a vacuum.”
Ah Sorry. I thought your object was touching the ice, which is why it had to be the temperature of the ice. Instead you assuming no other sources of radiation (eg no sunlight shining through the ice) as your reason the object would be the temperature of the ice. I was leaving open the possibility of other radiation that might be included in the analysis.
****************************************
The question here basically is “can the temperature of an object be determined by the radiation falling on the object.”
I say “when radiation is the only way energy goes in or out, then yes, you can”. I have given several examples. You brought up an examples like mirrors and the surface of the earth. Since both of these have other flows of energy besides radiation, then they are NOT counter examples to what I claimed.
“The object is separated from the surrounding ice by a vacuum, just like the Sun is separated from matter surrounding it.”
Well, that is also not a counter example. If we were trying to find the temperature of the SUN, then the matter around the sun would be important.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Ah Sorry. I thought your object was touching the ice, which is why it had to be the temperature of the ice. Instead you assuming no other sources of radiation (eg no sunlight shining through the ice) as your reason the object would be the temperature of the ice.”
Thank you for your apology.
You keep rejecting reality, but then admit I am right – for example about a mirror, or the surface of the Earth! They represent reality. Your “claims” are based on fantasy – with no connection to the real world.
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Your fantasies are not “experiments”.
Try describing the GHE, then devise a disprovable hypothesis. You see? You can’t do it, can you?
“You keep rejecting reality, but then admit I am right …”
The thing is, you are usually half right, and your critiques are usually half right. And the discussions steamroll ahead before any sort of resolution can be achieved.
Yep half rights and steamroll ahead. Sounds just like you Tim.
Rapid end to El Nino with a descent into another La Nina
https://youtu.be/CdGjhdAdl0I
Translation:
Normal course of an El Nino underway.
Next year, who knows? Not Eben.
NOAA CFSv2 forecast for Nino3+4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
El Nino stop treshold (+0.5) reached in April;
La Nina start treshold (-0.5) reached in June.
This was +- expected since months: it looks similar to the ENSO situation between 2012 and 2014.
Binny,
Would a 12 year old do any worse?
Are you trying to say something? You could always try using English, and saying what you mean.
Nice forecast
Bindidon,
the CFSv2 projections have been displaying an immediate cooling of NINO3.4 since late August. In every forecast update since then, the observation line ends, and then the models all, without exception, trend downward immediately after. In the August/September/October forecasts NINO3.4 would rise again a few months after immediately dipping.
However, since August, the actual observations have risen fairly steadily, so CSFv2 has been wrong for near-term predictions for 3 months.
In forecasts in November there is no rise, it’s all downhill for NINO3.4 CFSv2 forecasts from the end of November onwards.
We’ll see if they finally get the near-term forecast right.
You aren’t observing anything at all unusual.
It has been a real krapshoot as to what ENSO is going to do other than that from June onward they have an idea of what phase ENSO will likely be in.
Used to me you could review several years of model performance, or should I say institutional performance as models get updated at various times.
They plotted monthly outputs of individual models around the actuals that occurred. that used to be a click on each model on the IRI/CPC page but those links haven’t been around for a while.
What you do have though is the CPCCONSOL expert line that weights the models on past performance as they have that information.
But past performance for all the models isn’t anything to write home about.
barry
All correct.
JMA’s Tokyo Climate Center is on the same line:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1
*
No wonder: the last strong la Nina preceding the 2021-2023 edition started in 2010 and ended in 2012.
It took the ENSO system about 30 months to start up into the 2015/2015 El Nino:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
The same might well happen this time again.
Enso 3.4 is headed downhill. This weeks report has it at 1.9. Down from last week at 2.0.
All the Enso zones are headed down this week especially Nino 1+2 which has plummeted dramtically to +1.3 the first week its been reported as lower than Nino 3.4. Last week as I recall it was 2.1.
You should note that CSFv2 reports actuals are up to the current day.
The plume you are looking at only has observations through the first week of October so its from 2 months ago.
Bill, what plume are you referring to? This one that Bin just posted?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
That has obs up to Dec 10, which is the end of the initialisation period for the forecast.
I went looking through these forecasts, tracing each update back to July 2023.
My point is that we shouldn’t be too confident about the near-term forecasts, especially CFSv2.
Also, a weekly dip doesn’t mean a lot just yet. It can still pop back up. The forecasts that have been more correct than CFSv2 this season have a range of near-term outcomes from NINO3.4, both higher and lower than current. We’ll see.
Somebody said this earlier:
“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.”
December is a typical peak month for Nino 3.4. But weekly it has gone up and down several times. Not a good predictor of what’s ahead.
I think Nut&berry both ate too much Quark Soup
Things you will not learn from Wikipedia…
The Planck feedback is a fundamental and automatic response of the climate system to changes in temperature, acting to counteract temperature perturbations and restore radiative equilibrium. It is considered a negative feedback (-) because it helps to restore energy balance by increasing or decreasing outgoing radiation as needed. A negative feedback is stabilizing; it prevents a runaway effect.
Let’s assume we have an initial positive forcing that causes the temperatures in the troposphere to warm, e.g. Dr Roy Spencer’s graph at the top of the page. This leads to increased emitted terrestrial radiation to space, and the increased heat loss opposes the forcing and leads to cooling.
In shorthand form:
Given: E = σT^4
Differentiating wrt T: ΔE/ΔT = 4σT^3
Solving for ΔE: ΔE = 4σT^3ΔT
Such that for: T = 255K and ΔT = -33K
If only the Planck feedback was operating, and all other feedbacks were fixed: ΔE = -2.1 W/m^2.
In reality, the water vapor (+), snow/ice albedo (+), lapse rate (-), and cloud (+/-/?) feedbacks are all operating.
what about clouds? thats the big dog in the room as it reduces incoming by reflecting sunlight. and its completely ignored despite us being able to look at any satellite photo and see that there are more clouds everywhere its warmer. in fact you just ignored it too and threw in the much smaller snow/ice albedo effects because it fits with your unsupported claims of catastrophic warming.
yeah all you are doing is highlighting how crooked the game is.
Planck feedback is yet another illusion created in the minds of climate modelers. It has no independent existence.
Ark, you need to recheck your work. Start with using REAL values, not values from an imaginary sphere.
A,
“The Planck feedback is a fundamental and automatic response of the climate system to changes in temperature, acting to counteract temperature perturbations and restore radiative equilibrium.” Complete nonsense.
There is no “radiative equilibrium” – a fairy story believed by GHE worshippers, and similar fraudsters.
Let’s assume you are a donkey – and a gullible donkey at that.
Got any more fantasies to share?
more of Ark’s pseudo-science…
“In shorthand form:
Given: E = σT^4
Differentiating wrt T: ΔE/ΔT = 4σT^3
Solving for ΔE: ΔE = 4σT^3ΔT
Such that for: T = 255K and ΔT = -33K”
***
Ark has used the Greek symbol delta, the triangle, to indicate a differential quantity. Delta is used only to represent a change at the macro level, whereas the differential form he needs to represent is dE/dT.
The equation can be stated as follows: an infinitesimal change in radiation intensity (E) wrt an infinitesimal change in temperature (T) is represented by the following relationship…4σT^3. That relationship represents a tangent line to the E = sigma.T^4 curve at a given point on the curve and indicates how fast the curve is changing at that point. Note that the tangent line in this case is also a curve, and the tangent represent the rate of change of the function E – sigma.T^4 at that point.
Applying such a derivative to the climate is plain silly. Instantaneous changes represented by differential quantities can only be applied to well-defined changes of rate that are continuous, like a constnt change in velocity. Atmospheric or surface temperatures can hardly be well-defined or continuous.
Ark’s latest rant about the Planck feedback is equally wrong. It is based on the same bad math.
The cherry-picking fallacy, also known as selective evidence or incomplete evidence, occurs when someone intentionally focuses on specific data or examples that support their argument while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it.
For example:
[Cherry-picked quote] “The Planck feedback represented by the negative of our reference parameter is not really a feedback at all.”
[The complete quote] “Every climate model has a Planck feedback
The ‘Planck feedback’ represented by the negative of our reference – λ0 parameter is not really a feedback at all.
It is the most basic and universal climate process, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet. …”
P.s.: A sewer rat is more cunning, and possibly more intelligent than our cherry-picking denier!
AI? Yeah, you’re AI all right.
A,
I have seen imitation described as the sincerest form of flattery.
You imitated “A sewer rat is more cunning, and possibly more intelligent . . .” – and I thank you for your sincerity. I accept flattery from all – I do not mind if you are mentally deficient, and cannot even describe what you mean by “denier”.
Maybe you are even silly enough to believe in a GHE, which apparently causes warming and cooling – either sequentially, simultaneously, or not at all, depending on the current mental state of the believer!
Mental aberration writ large!
Keep the flattery going – I welcome it.
A,
You wrote –
“It is the most basic and universal climate process, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet. ”
It’s called physics. Next you’ll be amazed that hot things cool!
What do you think is responsible for the cooling of the Earth from a molten surface to a non-molten surface, over four and a half billion years? Waffling about climate models is just silly. Climate models are complete fantasies – useless and pointless.
SkyDragon cultists have attempted to rename the Stefan-Boltzmann law as the “Planck feedback”, another silly piece of jargon, unknown to real scientists!
Go on, try and describe the GHE! You can’t even bring yourself to say what the GHE is supposed to do! Does it make the planet hotter? Colder? Both simultaneously, or sequentially? Off you go – maybe you can invent some more jargon – how about the Pauli Process, or the Einstein Enigma?
Carry on. Still no GHE, is there?
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”
The discussions for Reasons 1-4 can be found here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1568069
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
CO2 can not radiatively raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. Realizing this, the cult has moved to claiming that CO2 is “insulation”. They claim CO2 blocks energy from going to space, so that causes warming. But, as usual, the cult does not understand the science.
It is the non-radiative gases in the atmosphere that act as insulation. Nitrogen and oxygen make up over 99% of the atmosphere. They do NOT radiate IR energy to space. They have thermal mass, and can act to stabilize atmospheric temperatures. Nitrogen and oxygen insulate Earth, not CO2.
The cult uses invalid examples to support their “CO2 insulates Earth” nonsense. One is a Thermos bottle. Another is reflective insulation (radiant reflector). In both cases, the ENTIRE flux is reflected, not just the low energy photons from the “cooler” side of the spectrum. Their invalid examples do NOT match Earth’s situation.
Oxygen and Nitrogen aren’t products of combustion. They can’t use those two gases to advance their agenda.
Of course, they completely ignore water. I guess it is too hard to villainize water. Hey AQ, is villainize a word?
Clint R,
If the donkeys use a Thermos bottle as an example of their brilliant thinking, they are definitely off with the fairies.
Put some hot soup in a Thermos. Put the Thermos in full sunlight. Watch the soup cool anyway.
What a pack of dills! No clue at al – these peanuts don’t seem to understand insulation. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of sunlight even reaching the surface. Skydragon cultists insist that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface makes it hotter!
No wonder they can’t describe their mystical GHE.
The atmosphere doesn’t prevent enough “sunlight” getting through to stop the surface being warmer than aloft.
Atmospheric constituents that absorb more solar radiation than terrestrial radiation act to cool the surface, and vise versa.
We have no problem imagining a layer of atmosphere warming by absorbing solar radiation, and preventing further warming below, but we seem to have a great deal of trouble imagining the same process happening from the ground up with infrared radiation.
barry,
“No wonder they cant describe their mystical GHE.”
What is all this supposed to mean? –
“We have no problem imagining a layer of atmosphere warming by absorbing solar radiation, and preventing further warming below, but we seem to have a great deal of trouble imagining the same process happening from the ground up with infrared radiation.”
Are you having problems with your imagination? It seems fine to me. You imagine that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface makes it hotter! Do you also imagine the opposite – that increasing the amount of sunlight results in cooling?
Maybe you’re right – your imagining ability has serious problems. Do you still imagine that you can describe a GHE which exists only in your imagination?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Carry on imagining.
barry…the surface is cooled mainly by conduction and convection. Heat is conducted directly to atmospheric gases touching it then the heated air rises as convection. As it rises, the gained heat dissipates naturally due to the negative pressure gradient in the atmosphere caused by gravity.
The Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget has that backwards, claiming most heat is dissipated via radiation. However, Shula proved, using the Pirani gauge, that conduction/convection is 260 times more effective dissipating heat than radiation.
Shula was not the only one who thought that. Lindzen claimed the surface would average 70C were it not for conduction/convection.
It’s a no-brainer really, a thermos, which relies basically on radiation for dissipation, can keep a liquid warm for hours whereas the same liquid, at the same temperature, cools within minutes in open air.
Gordon, hardly any thermal activity is happening in the atmosphere due to conduction. The main action is radiative and convective.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that conduction is a significant component of atmospheric heat transfer? Was it G&T?
Hardly anything right Barry? Sheesh! Its only primary means of energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere and within the atmosphere.
And yes G&T said you can’t set that to zero as you just effectively did.
Barry…
… is here right when contradicting Robertson’s pseudo-scientific trash.
*
The blatnt misuse of the Pirani gauge concept as conduction measurement tool, exclusively designed by Marcello Stefano Pirani to measure vacuum as quality control tool for the industrial production of vacuum/filament based bulb lamps…
https://sens4.com/pirani-working-principle.html
… is exactly as meaningless as are the claims that surface warms the air near it through conduction.
Air – as well as all of its constituents – is an excellent insulator, especially at surface-near temperatures:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
At a temperature of 25 C, air has a conductivity of
0.0262 Watt / meter Kelvin (W/mK)
This is 23 times less than water, 29 times less than asphalt, 1700 times less than stainless steel, and over 4500 times less than metal alloys like aluminum / brass mixtures.
To speak of conduction from surface to air denotes being, as opposed to real engineers, an absolutely ignorant person.
*
The convection processes starting near the surface can exist only in the presence of warmed air moving up versus cooler air moving down, hence can’t be due to conduction.
They are due in part to radiation, in part to evapo-transpiration taking place above the oceans, especially of course in the tropical regions.
More bad physics from Gordo:
As the parcels of air rise, they gains potential energy doe to the increase in altitude. As they cool and the water is removed as precipitation, they will sink and the gravity potential energy will be converted back to an increase in temperature. The cooling is the result of the EM radiation to higher elevations and to space above the Tropopause.
And still, none of the diversionary dills can explain why the Earth managed to cool over the past four and a half billion years. Yes, it has cooled. The surface is not molten.
That’s what cooling does.
Hence, all the attempts to make other people look stupid. But really, how stupid is it worshipping a GHE that nobody can describe?
Just start a new religion and be done with it.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Just like there are no violations of any laws of thermodynamics when cold air (relative to the earths surface) in conjunction with the sun warms the surface more than if the air was even colder (or missing altogether).”
Complete rubbish. Even back in the early days of John Tyndall’s work, it was rubbish. Tim, the reason why the maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere.
John Tyndall observed that a black bulb thermometer records increasing temperature as one ascends – less atmosphere between the Sun and the thermometer. You may search for the following, and read the rest of the chapter if you wish –
” The air is incompetent to check either the solar or the terrestrial radiation, and hence the maximum heat in the sun and the maximum difference between Calcutta and the plains of India is accounted for in the same way.”
You have no clue – your mental impairment precludes you from accepting reality.
Bill,
“Sheesh! [Conduction is] only [the] primary means of energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere…”
Correct, but that’s not what I was talking about.
“… and within the atmosphere.”
Totally incorrect, and yes, I was talking about heat transfer within the atmosphere.
Convection is the primary form of heat transfer within the atmosphere, followed by radiation. Conduction plays an insignificant role within the atmosphere.
So who cares about that Barry. We are talking about surface temperature, the place where you don’t need convection.
The theory has no blueprint. You are trying to appeal to emotion here. Thats the worst kind of science. If you want to make a convincing case convince somebody to give you the blueprint of how the GHE operates. My guess there is no consensus whatsoever on that and that has been my observation every time anybody tries to discuss it. They started out trying to pass off the 3rd grader radiation model; but thats been repeatedly proven not to work and a lot more importantly its never been proven to work.
I know you can’t do that as science has already admitted to test the theory you would need to create a world with a freely expanding atmosphere into which you could change gas compositions. But we lack the technology to do that.
So the only alternative is to change the gases on our planet and see what happens. But I am very much opposed to giving the government the power to run a worldwide experiment that touches every living animal on the planet for the purpose of trying to prove what they claim.
My position is simple. Lets let individuals live their lives as they see fit (except for the hypocrites who probably should choke down a gag) and if we see something actually bad happening that we can clearly attribute the cause of then lets then do something about it. We can’t predict climate so those who want to force their will on others should just chill out.
And Oh Barry if we do need convection we have some of your fellow posters in here claiming that its correct to set convection to zero and because they are correct that refutes G&T. Bottom line Barry is the CAGW crowd has a long ways to go to get their story straight so as to convince anybody with half a brain cell.
“get their story straight”
The story among climate scientists is straight. The one you get from the denialist blogosphere is not, Bill.
“we do need convection we have some of your fellow posters in here claiming that its correct to set convection to zero and because they are correct that refutes G&T. ”
Bill you are missing the point of how heat from the surface needs to go away somewhere in order for the surface to cool.
It cannot just go into the first few mm of air and just sit there!
It has to rise into the atmosphere, by convection and conduction, and then radiate out into space.
Without any of that happening efficiently, the surface cannot cool.
It is analogous to a circuit with resistors, and I analyze the total electrical resistance in the circuit.
Then you come along and say its all about the wires. Pay attention to the resistance of the wires!
Yes there is resistance in the wires, but their contribution is negligible and can be ignored in the analysis.
Here the thermal resistance between the surface and the air (due to conduction) is negligible and can be ignored in the analysis.
The vast majority of the thermal resistance comes in the atmosphere– all the way up to space- due to convection and radiation processes.
Correction:
“It has to rise into the atmosphere, by convection and RADIATION, and then radiate out into space.”
conduction is a negligible contributor to that.
What we are talking about is how the surface cools Nate.
Sure it cools by warming the air and then conduction benefits greatly by convection bring air with a higher temperature difference greatly accelerating conduction. Conduction at the point of contact is extremely robust and puts radiation to shame.
?Conduction at the point of contact is extremely robust and puts radiation to shame.”
Looks like you entirely missed the point.
“It cannot just go into the first few mm of air and just sit there!
It has to rise into the atmosphere, by convection and radiation, and then radiate out into space.
Without any of that happening efficiently, the surface CANNOT COOL.”
“The vast majority of the thermal resistance comes in the atmosphere all the way up to space- due to convection and radiation processes.”
It is the thermal resistance of the atmosphere that must be overcome for the surface to cool.
Think of it this way. Put one of those Foil-backed 12 inch thick fiberglass insulation batts on a house under construction.
The foil is good conductor over its 1 mm thickness, but so what? That conduction takes the heat 1 mm, then it runs into the 12 inches of fiber glass which is a very good insulator and does all the insulation of the house..
The 20 kilometer thick atmosphere is a very good insulator, and it does all the insulation of the Earth’s surface.
Barry cold objects don’t warm warmer objects. Obviously the air is warmed by sunlight and so is the ground but ground radiation doesn’t warm the air and doesn’t warm the sun either.
that is the ground warms the air but doesn’t warm the sun
barry won’t even accept that sometimes even a warmer object cannot stop the surface from cooling.
An example is where a low level inversion exists at night. The air is warmer than the ground, but the surface cools nevertheless. Reality doesn’t have a chance of intruding into the fantasies of GHE cultists.
“but ground radiation doesn’t warm the air”
Bill, this is a warm object causing a cooler object to get warmer. You realize that the average temperature of the surface is warmer than that of the atmosphere?
You think radiation from the sun can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but it can’t absorb radiation from the ground?
Must be some interesting physics you’re running with.
Yes Barry I corrected that typo right below my post.
barry,
You wrote –
“You think radiation from the sun can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but it cant absorb radiation from the ground?”
That’s a remarkably stupid gotcha, isn’t it?
Are you claiming to, be a mind reader, or are you just putting words in his mouth?
In reality, you are demonstrating complete ignorance.
No barry, you have no clue. Even when the ground is warmer than the atmosphere (generally at night, this is the case), the atmosphere still cools. What has “absorbing radiation” got to do with it? Does the GHE “absorb radiation”, perhaps?
Your brain needs to absorb some knowledge – and retain it!
Bill, that wasn’t a typo. That was a rethink, quite obviously (the word “either” is the giveaway), and sorry I didn’t notice it.
The basic problem with ‘skeptics’ misunderstanding of the GHE is that they forget that all heat flow has to be accounted for. They only see one direction of heat flow (from atmos to surface), and believe the 2nd Law has been violated. If all heat flows are accounted for, the warmer surface sends more heat to the atmosphere, on average, than the other way (setting aside local dynamics where it can go either way).
In the same way a sweater making you warmer doesn’t break 2LoT.
This should be easy to understand, but some ‘skeptics’ are reflexively contrary to the point of vacuousness.
barry,
You wrote “The basic problem with skeptics misunderstanding of the GHE is that they forget that all heat flow has to be accounted for. ”
You can’t even describe the GHE, you donkey! What’s to “misunderstand”?
What “heat flow” are you babbling about?
You don’t seem to accept that the surface has cooled since it was molten, and does so every night! Remove your tinfoil hat, and let reality sink in!
Described it many times and linked you recently to where I’ve done so.
Why do you lie so much? What do you get out of it? Whatever it is, is surely can’t be worth the cost to your integrity. I guess you don’t care about that, and maybe that’s the answer.
barry, you keep avoiding the issue.
Swenson is asking for your description/definition of the GHE that does NOT violate the laws of science. That should be obvious, but you keep throwing your cult nonsense against the wall, hoping that will suffice. You have NO description/definition of the GHE that will hold up.
And, your “heat flow” nonsense above is typical of your ignorance of thermodynamics.
It may be time for your usual immature insults and false accusations….
barry,
You wrote (obviously having a mental moment) –
“Described it many times . . .”.
No you haven’t. You just want other people to think you have.
Instead of wasting all that time trying to convince people that you have done something which you haven’t, why not just post your description here, and let readers make up their own minds?
You arent afraid that you will look like a braindead cultist, are you?
Just cut and paste your description – it will take less time than repeating your silly claims.
How hard can it be? Even for a donkey like you?
Scared? Terrified, even?
No, Clint, Swenson is saying very clearly that it’s never been described, when I certainly have done so, and more than once. He is not saying that it has been described deficiently.
That is why he is a liar. It’s a permanent condition, apparently.
barry says:
Bill, that wasnt a typo. That was a rethink, quite obviously (the word either is the giveaway), and sorry I didnt notice it.
——————
either works either way by definition Barry. Not real sharp there on word usage.
But you need to consider the correction came one minute after the post. I don’t generally proof read but caught that error with a glance, wrote another post and posted the correction. . .no doubt in your mind after hours of reconsideration. Sheesh!
barry says:
The basic problem with skeptics misunderstanding of the GHE is that they forget that all heat flow has to be accounted for.
—————–
Your misunderstanding is radiation isn’t a heat flow. Yes convection is.
In fact we know very little about the physics of the flow and can only measure effects. From that one can construct a cartoon analogy for the purpose of teaching children. But Einstein looked down on that as implying non-scientific explanations of the underlying physics of energy. This was a topic in which he had intense interest, and the greatest accolades in of any scientist and ignored the many questions he knew still needed solving.
So from the standpoint of the results we have read about several experiments on this all that failed to support the popular and heavily inculcated 3rd grader radiation model.
And we have yet seen a single experiment that claims to verify it.
I am afraid that means it isn’t science and won’t likely will ever be.
barry says:
”They only see one direction of heat flow (from atmos to surface)”
———
strawman alert! Skeptics are complaining about seeing too little Barry. Do you have a demonstration you can show them?
barry says:
”, and believe the 2nd Law has been violated.”
——————-
Strawman alert! The 2nd law by definition can’t be violated.
barry says:
If all heat flows are accounted for, the warmer surface sends more heat to the atmosphere, on average, than the other way (setting aside local dynamics where it can go either way).
In the same way a sweater making you warmer doesnt break 2LoT.
———————-
A sweater works by slowing conduction Barry. Radiation only works on the surface of the sweater because the temperature is lower. You are claiming an insulating effect based upon the temperature of the sky and mainstream science postulates a warming hotspot in the sky that will allegedly accomplish that. But that is what skeptics want evidence of. So your argument is circular and you have begged the question introducing a sweater as a representation of something that can’t be demonstrated. Yes you can demonstrate a sweater but the earth doesn’t have a sweater.
barry says:
”This should be easy to understand, but some skeptics are reflexively contrary to the point of vacuousness.”
————————-
Barry never ever questions authority and would never tell the Emperor he has no sweater. Sorry Barry most are not as subservient as you are and gullible to effects that have been shown not to work as advertised. See https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Even Vaughn Pratt had bought into the 3rd grader radiation model and out of frustration with skeptic conducted some experiments and now says it doesn’t work. He still believes it works some other way I think. And I have sympathy for that view point as generally without considering error bars I can only get it down to about a 9 1/2C greenhouse effect and recognize that 9C might be too much to attribute to errors in monitoring. But that means there is a GHE from some cause. Many have been proposed, really none have been eliminated.
Sorry barry, buy I’d already responded to your first link.
You have NOTHING.
barry,
Playing semantic games, are you?
OK, a description that includes what the GHE is supposed to do. A description that accords with reality,
For example, your linked silliness states “GHGs to slow the rate at which radiation from the surface escapes to space, and much more effectively than they slow radiation from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth.”
Radiation from the surface results in cooling – nighttime provides an example, as does the four and a half billion years cooling of the Earth’s surface. Does your GHE result in cooling? Nothing new there, you donkey!
Your “description” doesn’t seem to say anything different than “sunlight warms the surface, which cools when sunlight is not present”. Your “description” doesn’t seem to mention the fact that the surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Just “describing” something doesn’t mean it exists, unless you agree that unicorns, Krakens and dragons exist, because they have been described!
Accept reality. You are nothing more than a fanatical SkyDragon cultist, living in a world of fantasy!
No GHE, no unicorns, no dragons.
[GILL] that is the ground warms the air but doesnt warm the sun
[BARRY] this is a warm object causing a cooler object to get warmer. You realize that the average temperature of the surface is warmer than that of the atmosphere?
[GILL] Yes Barry I corrected that typo right below my post.
[BARRY] Bill, that wasnt a typo. That was a rethink,
[GILL] either works either way by definition
No wonder Gill then goes for the quote fest!
“Barry cold objects dont warm warmer objects. “
If I plug in my coffee pot outside on a cold winter day (lets say -20 C), the coffee in the pot will be just luke warm (lets say 40 C). If take the pot inside my garage where it is warmer (say 0 C), the coffee will warm up (lets say 50 C).
The cold air in the garage (cold compared to the coffee) — in conjunction with the heater under the pot — warmed the warmer coffee from 40C to 50 C.
No violations of any laws of thermodynamics.
Just like there are no violations of any laws of thermodynamics when cold air (relative to the earth’s surface) — in conjunction with the sun — warms the surface more than if the air was even colder (or missing altogether).
We could argue various semantics about whether the air “caused” or “aided” or “allowed”, but the air is part of the equation for how hot the coffee or the earth gets. We MUST include the colder air in any analysis of the temerature.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Just like there are no violations of any laws of thermodynamics when cold air (relative to the earths surface) in conjunction with the sun warms the surface more than if the air was even colder (or missing altogether).”
Complete rubbish. Even back in the early days of John Tyndall’s work, it was rubbish. Tim, the reason why the maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere.
John Tyndall observed that a black bulb thermometer records increasing temperature as one ascends – less atmosphere between the Sun and the thermometer. You may search for the following, and read the rest of the chapter if you wish –
” The air is incompetent to check either the solar or the terrestrial radiation, and hence the maximum heat in the sun and the maximum difference between Calcutta and the plains of India is accounted for in the same way.”
You have no clue – your mental impairment precludes you from accepting reality.
Tim Folkerts says:
If I plug in my coffee pot outside on a cold winter day (lets say -20 C), the coffee in the pot will be just luke warm (lets say 40 C). If take the pot inside my garage where it is warmer (say 0 C), the coffee will warm up (lets say 50 C).
—————————
tim provides an effective argument that essentially argues that if the climate is warmer the climate will be warmer.
Swenson,
I’ve saved your reply acknowledging that I’ve described the GHE.
“Just ‘describing’ something doesn’t mean it exists…”
So let’s have no more lying about no one having ever described the GHE.
Your repeated ‘rebuttals’ to the GHE – that it gets cold at night, and that the Earth has cooled overall in the last 4.5 billion years are vacuous and irrelevant.
The same argument could be used to say that the solar cycle doesn’t exist – it gets colder at night, so how can the sun be getting hotter?
The sun has become hotter over the last 4.5 billion years while the planet has cooled. Your argument thus infers that increased solar radiation could not ever make the surface warmer.
Both propositions are as nonsensical as when you apply the same argument to the GHE. The obvious answer to both is that there are other forces dominating over those timescales.
The surface cools by radiating its energy. GHGs absorb radiation in the spectrum emitted by Earth – much more strongly than they absorb solar radiation. This is an empirical truth, based on millions of spectroscopic measurements of gases, archived in several databases around the world (HITRAN being the most well-known). This is not some flight of fancy – the optical properties of GHGs are well-known.
If there was no atmosphere, or an atmosphere without GHGs, there would be no impediment to the surface cooling by radiation. The radiation would go direct from the surface to space.
GHGs absorb and re-emit the radiation they receive, or impart it through molecular collision. Radiation is emitted in all directions equally, including to the surface. The atmosphere and surface radiate to each other and absorb radiation from each other. This is how the rate of surface radiative cooling is slowed by the presence of of a GHG atmosphere. Instead of radiating freely to space, the surface is now having some of radiation directed back to it.
Radiation is radiated and absorbed in both directions (all directions), but the flow of heat is only one way – from surface to atmosphere (averaged over time, ignoring atmospheric inversions and other temporary phenomena that locally and transiently reverse this flow).
That is the basic mechanism of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.
An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. That’s basic thermodynamics.
And that’s the GHE.
(I have set aside convection, the lion’s share of heat transport in the atmosphere, to focus on the mechanism of the GHE)
There is more detail, but the optical properties of ‘greenhouse’ gases provide the mechanism for the GHE. The continual energy comes from the sun, the rate of energy loss is modified by the atmosphere. The 2nd Law is not broken because the flow of heat is hot to cold. AGW no more breaks the 2nd Law than putting on a second sweater.
Bill,
“You are claiming an insulating effect based upon the temperature of the sky and mainstream science postulates a warming hotspot in the sky that will allegedly accomplish that.”
Completely wrong. The tropical mid-tropospheric “hotspot” has nothing to do with the GHE, and is not required for the GHE to work.
This is the problem with getting your understanding from blogs and books by skeptics. They get things so wrong.
Around 2008/9 the skeptiverse was abuzz with the notion the a ‘signature’ of greenhouse warming was the “hotspot.” It showed up in graphs in the 2007 IPCC report under greenhouse warming, after all. And as there didn’t seem to be conclusive proof of any hotspot, the greenhouse theory must be wrong.
Unfortunately, the hotspot is theorised to occur under atmospheric warming from any source, such as a hotter sun. It is not a signature of AGW. If there is a flaw here it is to do with modeling of the moist adiabatic response to atmospheric temperature change.
Buit chinese whispers in the skeptiverse has brought us a novel interpretation through you. Now, apparently, the GHE is caused by the hotspot!
Bill muses: “tim provides an effective argument that essentially argues that if the climate is warmer the climate will be warmer.”
This misses the point I was making.
Many people say that colder surroundings can have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on warmer objects – that such a thing would violate the 2LoT. (Eg, that photons from cold objects simply ignore or reflect from hotter objects.)
The coffee pot shows that colder surrounding MUST be taken in to account.
Once that is acknowledged, THEN the specific impacts of the atmosphere can be delved into. In this case, more GHGs means the thermal radiation comes from higher in the atmosphere, which in turn means less radiation to space. This means more energy stays in the system, resulting in higher temperatures. There is no “heat from cool to warm”. There is no “double couunting” the energy.
Your coffee pot is exposed to colder surroundings Tim. Thats not the case for a surface bathed in 1.0 view factor solar radiation averaging 341w/m2. You have just a tiny burner on the bottom of the pot.
So effectively the temperature is going to be based on the sunshine the surface receives as there are no leaks around the burner. So what you need to do is spread your little burner all around the pot and then see what results you get.
“Thats not the case for a surface bathed in 1.0 view factor solar radiation averaging 341w/m2.”
Bill, are you really suggesting that the surface has no colder place to lose its input solar heat to?
Think again.
Also VF = 1, is quite incorrect!
Nate what I am suggesting is a demonstration of your claims rather than your usual vacuous repetition of them.
Bill claims: “Thats not the case for a surface bathed in 1.0 view factor solar radiation averaging 341w/m2. You have just a tiny burner on the bottom of the pot.”
No. The sun heats from a tiny part of the sky — about 0.5 degrees across. The bulk of the surroundings are the atmosphere (or cold outer space).
The situation is actually quite analogous to the coffee pot.
Its not the same
you have an additional power source for your coffee maker that is going to heat the coffee but not the atmosphere as the coffee pot element is to weak to heat the atmosphere.
Its obvious that the coffee is going to be warmer on a hot day than a cold day.
When you have the 1.0FV of everything everything will heat up to the same temperature, except that GHGs will cool the top of the atmosphere and convection cycling the cooled gases down to the surface will make the near surface atmosphere cooler than the surface during the day.
When you have less than a 1.0fv your coffee will heat without heating the atmosphere. And when the sun comes up it will heat some more.
All you are saying is you want to compare what happens when you have no atmosphere to heat or just the element in the coffee maker to heat up a room you are screwed by your very poor far less than 1.0FV.
so in your example you completely left out what changed the temperature of the atmosphere.
“When you have the 1.0FV of everything everything will heat up to the same temperature,”
Bill you are ignoring what people are saying, not thinking, and repeating nonsense.
The sun does not fill the sky. It is a disk covering 0.5 degrees of the sky. So that very much less than a VF = 1.
The rest of the sky is cooler than the Earth’s surface. That means there is plenty of sky for the Earth to lose heat into.
And that is a good thing, because with the heat input of the sun, it needs to lose heat to SOMEWHERE.
And obviously it loses it upward, and ultimately to space, which is very cold.
Nate you are just parroting Tim.
I am responding to Tim and I am not going to repeat that response. The conversation has moved past you.
Well, you have no fact-based answers for either of us. And you refuse to acknowledge your VF confusions.
Thanks Nate I will make a note that the gypsy driveway paving scam salesman casts his vote for Tim. Now go away.
Not voting for anyone, just physics.
Now of course, we are both physicists, and thus tend to agree on it.
Seems as if you effectively voted for Tim by plagiarizing his questions. If you had noted something unique I might have answered.
“It is the non-radiative gases in the atmosphere that act as insulation. Nitrogen and oxygen make up over 99% of the atmosphere. They do NOT radiate IR energy to space. They have thermal mass, and can act to stabilize atmospheric temperatures. Nitrogen and oxygen insulate Earth, not CO2.”
Exactly, Clint R. Or, as Ron Clutz put it, in more detail:
“Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that [energy] passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible..
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.”
Some of that is correct but it is incomplete and the conclusion ‘Nitrogen and oxygen insulate Earth, not CO2’ is incorrect.”
Without GHG, the only way for energy to leave the Earth would be radiation direct from the surface, and at the SB temperature of the surface (eg 288 K).
Because GHG can abs.orb and reemit radiation in the atmosphere, then much of the energy leaving the Earth is from the GHG emitting from very COLD altitudes where the temperature is as low as 220 K, and therefore LESS is IR is emitted to space than would be direct from the much warmer surface.
With less IR emitted to space, the Earth must be warm to compensate.
So you say Nate. Where is the evidence?
Youve seen it over and over. But to remind you:
Here is a physics based calculation.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Here are satellite measurements of Earth’s radiation, that agrees with the calcs.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
Here is a recent paper discussing the effect of the height of emission.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
Nate brings forth some of the science interspersed within the BS of claims of how the GHE exists. How come you didn’t include a few quotes of Newton to go along with it before extapolating it all to a theory that has no evidence of being the correct theory.
Its like the old logic fallacy
If it rains outside the sidewalks will get wet.
The sidewalks are wet
Therefore, it rained
The effective height of emission only considers one mode of surface cooling when their are more efficient means still available, like turning on the sprinklers to wet the sidewalk at will.
You are constantly asking for evidence. Here it is.
Are you gonna read it or not? And give some science rebuttal, or not?
Yes I read them. What conclusion(s) (precise quote please) from any of the studies do you believe is adequate to prove that CO2 controls the temperature of the atmosphere?
I mean if you can identify a key conclusion we can then focus in on the evidence presented in the article. But I couldn’t find one I wanted to pursue as they are all like ”might” have an effect, or ”if the atmosphere is not isothermal” and such.
As I see it either you didn’t read them yourself, or you didn’t understand what you read, or you are lying, Or I missed something you can point out that I must have missed.
“The effective height of emission only considers one mode of surface cooling when there are more efficient means still available, like turning on the sprinklers to wet the sidewalk at will.“
Effective height of emission!? That’s what he responded with!? Looks like Nate didn’t bother reading what he was responding to properly. Without GHGs, the atmosphere would not be able to cool anything like as efficiently via radiation, but it would still be able to be warmed by the surface directly through conduction and convection. We should be asking how hot could the atmosphere get without GHGs, not how cold would it be!
It’s the temperature of the atmosphere we are interested in, near the surface, not the temperature of the surface itself. The O2 and N2 “hold onto the heat” better than GHGs, which can radiate it away. Hence the O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators, not GHGs. GHE defenders are effectively saying that adding more gases which can radiatively cool an atmosphere are going to make that atmosphere warmer! How they try to get away with this is by constantly conflating the concept of the temperature of the surface itself with the concept of the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere.
Adding more GHGs will obviously make the atmosphere more able to cool itself, thus colder, overall, but if you trick yourself into thinking about the surface, instead, those extra GHGs are now sending more radiation down to the surface, so it must get warmer, right? But, we’re not interested in the temperature of the surface itself, we live in the near-surface atmosphere, so that is what matters to us, and that is obviously cooled by adding more gases that can cool it. Besides, once you have freed your mind from the del.usion of back-radiation warming/insulation, you’ll know that the physical surface itself will not be warmed by additional GHGs anyway.
So, mentioning the whole “effective emission height” argument is just a complete dodge of the point being made. It certainly isn’t a rebuttal to Clutz’s argument. It just sidesteps it and attempts to assert a new version of the GHE which might seem on the surface not to need back-radiation warming/insulation to work, but most certainly does when you look into it more closely.
“Looks like Nate didnt bother reading what he was responding to properly. Without GHGs, the atmosphere would not be able to cool anything like as efficiently via radiation, but it would still be able to be warmed by the surface directly through conduction and convection.”
What a joke! DREMT claims he doent want to respond to me, but of course, he does anyway!
And declares silly stuff without a shred of evidence to support it.
Whereas I showed Bill evidence. GHE theory and measurements.
These confirm the basic logic: radiation emitted from COOLER material high in the atmosphere is REDUCED. Therefore, with GHG in the atmosphere, the radiation emitted to space from Earth is LESS than what it would be if it came directly from the warmer surface of the Earth.
Not sure why people have trouble with this very simple concept.
“I mean if you can identify a key conclusion we can then focus in on the evidence presented in the article. But I couldnt find one I wanted to pursue”
The topic was this, Bill:
I stated:
“Because GHG can abs.orb and reemit radiation in the atmosphere, then much of the energy leaving the Earth is from the GHG emitting from very COLD altitudes where the temperature is as low as 220 K, and therefore LESS is IR is emitted to space than would be direct from the much warmer surface.
With less IR emitted to space, the Earth must be warm to compensate.”
You said “So you say Nate. Where is the evidence?”
So that’e exactly what I gave you. I would think you would want to read it.
First we have the Modtran model, which determines what emission to space would be if the above description were TRUE.
It does this by using established optical properties of GHG gases as a function of temperature. It incorporates a lapse rate that matches observations.
The gases emit LESS at high altitude because it is colder up there.
Then the second source shows the OBSERVED spectra from space. It matches very well the Modtran model at all wavelengths. The emission to space in the CO2 bands and H2O bands has deep holes, as expected.
These holes are emission that is much LOWER, amd matches what is expected for COLDER temperatures than the Earth’s surface.
This confirms what I stated,
“LESS is IR is emitted to space than would be direct from the much warmer surface.”
I did read it and as to your source doesn’t confirm your theory.
First it says this in the conclusion:
”The fact that a sat.uration of the ab.sor. ptivity of the atmosphere leads to a sat.uration of the greenhouse effect is directly related to the hypothesis of an isothermal atmosphere. When this simplification is removed and the decrease of temperature with altitude is considered, as is the case in the troposphere, the greenhouse effect can continue to increase even if the ab.sor. ptivity of the atmosphere is sat.urated.”
Also this source does not consider the potential impact of negative feedback such as Dr. Lindzen’s emerging phenomena.
So even if there was no caveat you would still need to deal with that.
Roy had did an analysis of a warming event and found emerging phenomena that greatly reduced the effect down to a feedback effect that was negative.
But your source says that the primary effect isn’t even out of the gate yet.
“I did read it and as to your source doesnt confirm your theory.”
My response above I was talking about the first two links.
In particular, the second link shows a graph with the observed and predicted emission spectrum of the Earth, that AGREE.
Are you going to ignore this unambiguous evidence?
“I did read it and as to your source doesnt confirm your theory.”
Huh? Did you MISS THIS?
” when the decrease of temperature with altitude is considered, as is the case in the troposphere, the greenhouse effect can continue to increase even if the ab.sor.ptivity of the atmosphere is sat.urated.”
It PERFECTLY AGREES with the theory.
actually though you have deceived yourself. 1)can is not will. can means here effectively if not eliminated by the negative feedback found by roy in his investigation.
2) you ignored that if the atmosphere is isothermal it won’t increase the greenhouse effect by excising that caveat.
so you have 2 challenges yet to be surmounted to claim your theory as scientifically verified. i know that is not what your daddy told you. obviously your daddy wants to keep you ignorant and wants to invoke a beauty contest in the form of subjective best science available contest so science is foisted on us by fiat.
“2) you ignored that if the atmosphere is isothermal”
Is it isothermal?
No. So that is quite pointless.
You try to come up with excuses to ignore straightforward evidence, but as always they are FLIMSY.
I am going keep this little discussion on file, and pull it out whenever you again ask for evidence.
You actually have no interest in seeing evidence.
-You will ignore it.
-You won’t read/understand it.
-You will misrepresent it.
-You will make flimsy excuses.
-You will knee-jerk reject it.
So next time you ask for evidence, we will know that it is just a ploy.
…so, mentioning the whole “effective emission height” argument is just a complete dodge of the point being made. It certainly isn’t a rebuttal to Clutz’s argument. It just sidesteps it and attempts to assert a new version of the GHE which might seem on the surface not to need back-radiation warming/insulation to work, but most certainly does when you look into it more closely.
“so, mentioning the whole effective emission height argument is just a complete dodge of the point being made. ‘
Then we have DREMT, who completely rejects the evidence, sight unseen.
There is no evidence Nate because there is no experiment that can be designed. So the only avenue is looking at it statistically how the temperature changes in lockstep with emissions and thats all messed up by a real lack of understanding of what drives climate.
So all we ever hear from you is either you haven’t looked at the evidence or your provided a theoretical paper that could produce the results. But the papers you look at and conclude from has conditional statements in the conclusions in the form of an if, then logical statement.
You do know what a conditional statement is Nate, don’t you? Sure you must.
But what you do is then excise off the ‘if’ part of the statement and offer it up as a done deal.
So that leaves you at the same level as a salesman for the gypsy driveway paving industry.
And when all that fails I am sure you will then resort back to your usual ask of asking others to untangle the Gordian Knot of climate change for the benefit of climate change science department.
Nate says:
”2) you ignored that if the atmosphere is isothermal”
Is it isothermal?
No. So that is quite pointless.
———————-
Nate made a claim that the authors of the paper put in a ”pointless” conditional saturation and local isothermic conditional statements where CO2 could produce more GHE
But Nate needs a reference to support his claim that those were bunko conditionals.
One just cannot just shoot down an AMS paper without a source to back their claim. Sure you can be skeptical of the methodology and results but you have to realize that does nothing to assuage the great uncertainty around the GHE effects of CO2.
I am pleased that Nate has given me this paper because I estimated from available data several years ago problems in both areas. I have had sources on the saturation issue but had no paper to support my intuition on the isothermic issue.
Now I have that too. So its yet another brick in the theory I have been working on (very part time) for about 10 years.
Let me say right off that at times and places in the atmosphere its not isothermic but that poses huge problems for those basing the amount of warming that may occur from CO2 because they are reaching for every watt the atmosphere absorbs into CO2 and they have to still deal with negative feedback before any such warming could reach the surface such as Dr. Lindzen’s emerging phenomena, and many other climate variation selectively not recognized by the IPCC such as ozone’s ability to greatly absorb UV. (over 90% of UVA and UVB some 24watts alone before the light reaches cloud tops listed as the top source of protection from UV.
And I also have to thank Cristos and the Driveway paving scammers for their debate on Milankovich cycles as I have found another major correlation to recent warming patterns thanks to that discussion, though I have one more step to go in estimating the magnitude of warming that correlation is attributable to the pattern could be a combination of yet to be quantified effects over the same time variation schedule.
Hopefully Nate has something more than scam claims about the conditional statements in the paper he produced he claimed supported his position. Its been really hard to get him to do that. Perhaps all he did is blurt out what he hopes to be true. . .he seems to have a strong propensity to do that.
“local isothermic conditional”
Not what you said. You said “2) you ignored that if the atmosphere is isothermal it wont increase the greenhouse effect by excising that caveat.”
This is just confusion on your part, Bill.
The atmosphere can always be considered to be LOCALLY isothermal, but obviously not so globally, because of the lapse rate.
The theory assumes that there is a lapse rate, and this is absolutely TRUE.
and of course Nate continues to eschew science and continues with unsupported declaratory statements
worse nate continues to suggest that his own science source that nate produced to argue that co2’s effect on climate was well supported included a false condition.
further it is noted that this study is a model and not a greenhouse gas experiment. which of course means you can’t validate a model with a model. we don’t even know how a increase in emission height translates to increased surface warming unless that projected hotspot nobody has seen gets warmer than the surface. e.g. no heat records due to co2 unless the hotspot can be seen from the surface (and we don’t even bother with a program to look for that on a global basis). obviously a hot wall behind a cooler wall isn’t going to be seen by something covered by the cooler wall.
so we have gone full circle once again using intuition in the face of a huge number of varying variables to guide us in public policy.
Gill always forget to show the contradiction he talks about.
Really weird…
Perhaps a good night’s sleep will do him good?
“There is no evidence Nate because there is no experiment that can be designed.”
FALSE.
I showed you this measurement that tested the GHE theory as calculated with Modtran.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
What is it about this result that is unclear to you?
well models must be verified by experience nate and the only experience within modtran is how much energy from a co2 laser is absorbed by co2 to warm the atmosphere requires each co2 molecule which only absorbs a small percentage of ir spectrum to then warm 2,500 other molecules. and you guys just wave your hand to dismiss conduction as being too slow to do anything.
the phony baloney that comes from you guys is so thick you can spread it with a knife.
sorry nate but it seems all you can come up with is models and all your source model did was say a simpler atmosphere model was needed that dropped as an assumption certain uncertainties giving an insider look at the thinking behind the model development that is then completely ignored when estimating ipcc levels of uncertainty. which is obvious when warming from emission height change could be zero. in football thats called a 50/50 ball. . .demonstrating that typical football fans have a lot more smarts than you guys.
Obviously you don’t even read this stuff:
there is no test of modtran in that study. It tested TOA emission changes against ENSO and while they noted improvement here they said it was up to testing long term climate change:
”One key observational requirement to address long-term climate change is an improvement in instrument calibration, particularly for the imager and radiation budget instruments. While the estimated stability of the CERES TOA radiation record of roughly 0.5 Wm−2 per decade is a factor of 34 better than anticipated prior to the launch of CERES, there is a need for another factor of 23 improvement in order to constrain cloud feedback.”
Even worse for you this study supports what I have been saying that we are decades away from having a temperature record of any hope of validating the GHE theory currently being advanced.
Oh I see why you are confused.
I posted the wrong link. My bad!
It was supposed to be this one:
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html
It compares the measured outgoing IR compared with the GHE predictions as calculated by Modtran.
Hopefully that makes it clear that there IS direct evidence supporting the model.
nate you must have posted the wrong link again.
that doesn’t show any trend in warming from co2.
Are u playing dum.b, or did you already forget what this discussion was about?
Reminder
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
You asked where’s the evidence?
Nate this was the discussion: parens my comments
”Because GHG can abs.orb and reemit radiation in the atmosphere,” (not body disagrees here and thats all that modtran does also. . .at least in some versions of Modtran without addons.
”then much of the energy leaving the Earth is from the GHG emitting from very COLD altitudes where the temperature is as low as 220 K, and therefore LESS is IR is emitted to space than would be direct from the much warmer surface.”
This is what you purported to prove with your paper. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
Which is simply a climate model with Modtran providing what CO2 would absorb. And the response is that if CO2 is not saturated and the isothermic hypothesis is false, then its possible that this hypothesis could create some warming.
Which of course means the models have never been more than a hypothesis and their output is simply what the programmers wanted as an output.
Then you come back and claim modtran proves the climate models when all modtran is is an element in the models that doesn’t deliver any heat nor puports to deliver any heat to the surface.
Nate thats not the way science works. Yet you are right back in here begging the question and declaring it does. And you still don’t have a source establishing that it does.
“This is what you purported to prove with your paper. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml”
Nope, as I clearly noted, that was the wrong link.
“Which of course means the models have never been more than a hypothesis and their output is simply what the programmers wanted as an output.”
Nope. The model is tested by real data, that was shown to you.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html
It compares the measured outgoing IR compared with the GHE predictions as calculated by Modtran.
This IS DIRECT evidence supporting the GHE model.
It makes it abundantly clear that with GHG present, the outgoing energy to space is REDUCED.
This totally contrary to the bizarre claims by some here that GHG make the Earth cooler.
“This is what you purported to prove with your paper. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
That one indeed makes the case that the GHE is primarily due to emission height and lapse rate.
Specifically it makes the case that most of the increase in GHE with CO2 is due to the increase in emission height.
Regular readers will know by now that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so Team GHE are going to have to try with somebody else.
Thats ok, we all know that’s a sham, because you have no answers.
Everyone else can read my post, and that’s all that matters.
Regular readers will know by now that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so Team GHE are going to have to try with somebody else.
Nope. I am responding to Mr. Klutz’s argument, and pointing out the glaring flaws in it.
Everyone can read it.
Some, such as you, have no answers, and that’s ok.
…readers will know by now that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so Team GHE are going to have to try with somebody else.
If you have no answers, which is increasingly clear, that’s fine. No need to respond at all.
…will know by now that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so Team GHE are going to have to try with somebody else.
Judas Clint continues to betray his fellow skeptics.
“A flux does NOT have a frequency! A flux consists of photons, all with different frequencies
Even a cheap IR thermometer is accurate to +/- 1F. S/B works”.
***
Forget the photon for a moment. An EM flux can be generated from a conductor in which electrons are running through. Since the EM is not being generated by electrons orbiting atoms, but by free electrons in a conductor, it demonstrates that EM can be generated by the electron charge alone and external to an atom.
If those electrons are reversing in an alternating current at high frequency, the EM can be generated for thousands of miles and it has the frequency of the electron alterations that caused it. That’s how communications system work. It is the same EM that you categorize as photons. Without a frequency in their flux fields there would be no way of sending signals via EM, and distinguishing one signal from the other.
I have no interest in putting you down and would appreciate a civil conversations about matters, especially those with which I have expertise. However, a while back, you decided to attack me in the same manner as you mindlessly attack alarmists. You leave me no option but to expose your myopic understanding of flux and what it means in reality.
With regard to S-B, once again, it is not used in IR thermometers. It simply would not work. IR thermometers are calibrated in a lab to known temperatures and the frequencies they give off. That data is then programmed into the meter’s memory and used to compare the voltage a detector generates with similar frequencies.
The basic principle with IR detectors is the use of semiconductor material that responds to IR frequencies. Those semiconductors are not responding to heat since the heat sources they are detecting are too far away to have their heat level detected directly. Rather, the detector responds to IR frequencies given off by the heat source.
IR is not heat but it can identify a heat source since heat at various temperatures emits IR at different frequencies. By receiving an IR frequency and determining the effect it can produce on a semiconductor that reacts to such frequencies by altering the current through the semiconductor, we can compare the voltage produced in a load by the current, to a voltage calibrated at the lab and stored in the units memory.
The point is, IR meters do not detect heat, they detect infrared fluxes from a heat source. If I point an IR camera at a forest and detect an animal moving in the forest, I am not detecting heat from the animal but infrared energy given of by a body at a certain temperature.
Gordon, I find myself unable to “Forget the photon for a moment.”
There is no experimental evidence to support the speculation that ‘free” electrons can either emit or absorb photons.
I also differ with your views about IR thermometers. Fluke Instruments explain some of the difficulties with measuring temperature with such instruments. Fluke says “The reason for this is that not all materials emit the same amount of infrared energy when they are at the same temperature.” This means that objects at precisely the same temperature can give completely different readings when measured with an IR thermometer.
Calibrated to an assumed emissivity, rather than temperature as such. Usually fairly close, but not always.
Oh well, who cares? If your life is saved as a result of using a thermal imager, it doesn’t matter how it works.
swenson…I don’t think free electrons emit photons, I think it is the electric charge they carry that creates the EM emission while moving in a conductor. It’s not clear if you are arguing that free electrons don’t create electromagnetic fields around a conductor but there is amply evidence it is true.
Photons are a peculiar theory that evolved from the work of Bohr related to electrons in variable orbits about a nucleus. He did not call them photons, I think he referred to them as quanta. Seems to me the word photon may have a basis Einstein’s photoelectric effect.
It was actually Gilbert Lewis who coined the term in 1926 and was referring to a quantity of light, not a particle.
I don’t see how we differ re IR meters. I regard them as pretty flaky in the sense that you simply cannot take a meter, point it at a source, and completely rely on what you are reading. The detectors in the meters have specific frequency ranges they can cover and you need to be able to focus the beam in a rather narrow area at a specific distance. Pointing them at the sky and trying to rely on what you read is sheer folly IMHO. They will tell you the sky is colder but that’s about all.
Gordon,
I wrote “There is no experimental evidence to support the speculation that free electrons can either emit or absorb photons.” Electrons which are part of atoms are totally different. Bohr’s electron models turned out to be wrong. No little bodies orbiting a nucleus. Science moved on, and eventually QED appeared.
Experiments have never shown QED theory to be wrong – ever!
It doesnt matter how weird quantum electrodynamics seems, no matter how counter intuitive it is – every QED prediction has been verified by experiment, regardless of what anybody thinks!
Good enough for me. Richard Feynman said “. . . I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” That would include me. I can use it, it works, but I cannot claim to understand it.
If anyone claims they do understand QED theory, I am pretty sure that I can ask a QED question or two that they can’t answer.
GHE supporters cannot even say what the GHE is supposed to do – especially when the Sun isn’t shining! A shambling herd of donkeys.
Thanks for quoting me correctly in your rambling rant, Gordon. That’s always a good way to learn, even when you’re foaming at the mouth.
As usual, you’re confused about the S/B Law. The S/B Law is only one way a flux is created. A current in a conductor can create a flux. An LED can create a flux. Lightning can create a flux. Heck, even a firefly can create a flux. The S/B Law is only one way.
And, the S/B Law works, regardless of your inability to understand it. You can’t even understand conventional current flow. Science isn’t for everyone. Maybe that’s why you’re so filled with jealousy and hatred. Science just isn’t your bag.
Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this –
How can laws create stuff?
Hey Willard,
Riddle me this
Why are you such a dill?
What are you braying about, Mr. Pickle?
Willard,
I’ll pay that one.
You just set up wee willy to nail you with the obvious…the S-B law describes radiation from a surface of temperature, T, it does not create the radiation. In fact, when Stefan created the law he knew nothing about electrons and EM since the electron had yet to be discovered and Bohr had not equated EM to electrons. I did not read Stefan saying anything about what was being radiated but he likely believed like anyone else in his era that it was heat being radiated as heat rays.
All S-B was claiming is that ‘something’ that produces a colour, is being emitted from a hot platinum filament. It was not till many years later that Bohr discovered the relationship between electron transitions in atoms and the generation of EM that it began to make sense.
However, scientists well before Stefan, like Faraday, Oersted and Gauss, had discovered ‘fields’ around conductors carrying electric current. Faraday had already concluded the fields had electric and magnetic qualities and that lead Maxwell to his work on electromagnetic fields. However, Maxwell knows nothing more than the rest about the meaning of electromagnetic energy.
Neither Stefan nor Boltzmann knew the meaning of EM either but that did not stop Boltzmann setting science back a few centuries by making silly conclusions about entropy and the 2nd law based on statistical theory. His damnable work even convinced people like you that entropy is a measure of disorder. The real disorder was in Boltzmann’s brain.
You have no way of proving that S-B applies outside the temperature range of about 500C to 1500C. Based on what you have written, I don’t think you get it when you claim radiation from ice, at an estimated 315 w/m^2, based on S-B, cannot warm anything. And as long as you believe that S-B applies at 0C, you will continue to be deluded about it.
“You have no way of proving that S-B applies outside the temperature range of about 500C to 1500C. ”
Well, no way to do it using Tyndall’s 150 year old data. But science has moved forward in the past few centuries.
As long as you continue to believe that S-B ONLY holds for 500- 1500 C, you will continue to be deluded. What do you think happens at 499 C or 1501 C?
Gordon, I no longer get in keyboard contests with children.
You don’t understand conventional current flow, heat, S/B Law, flux, photons, 2LoT, or entropy. You’re just another unqualified, angry Canadian loser.
I can’t help you.
Clint R
Funny thing is you are a child yourself when it comes to science. You don’t even know what science is, you are so confused.
Blabbing your endless made up opinions, as if they were facts, is not science. I have asked you several times to provide evidence for your claims. You provide none, just your opinions. You are what you fear most, a cult minded deluded poster. You are not at all science minded nor even understand what science is and can do.
Some examples. Radiant energy from a cold source cannot be absorbed by a hotter surface. This is not science. It is a made up opinion NOT based upon any evidence. You peddle it as fact but you provide no evidence.
Another one you say fluxes don’t add. Another made up fantasy from your cult mind.
You come on this blog and state Nitrogen gas reflects IR. You have no evidence to support the claim but you make it anyway.
It is really funny you call out the ignorance of Gordon Robertson when you are the same mind.
Science is about evidence. You are not into science.
Cult thinking is about belief and convincing others of what you say is true without evidence. You are a cultist like your hero Joseph Postma. You are not at all science minded.
You could change this sad state of your posts by providing evidence for the many claims you make. Since you are cultist you will not do this but will follow your Master’s approach and throw out some derogatory remark. You are a dedicated disciple of the Cult of Postma.
Norman, your medication isn’t working.
Let your therapist know.
“Ark has used the Greek symbol delta, the triangle, to indicate a differential quantity. Delta is used only to represent a change at the macro level, whereas the differential form he needs to represent is dE/dT.”
Taking a chance here of making things even more confusing for you …
1/ The use of the Greek symbol Delta (Δ) to express differentiation in calculus is permissible due to its historical association with finite differences.
2/ In calculus, the symbol Δ is commonly employed to denote a small change in the independent variable.
3/ When used in the context of limits, as in the definition of a derivative, Δx represents an infinitesimally small change in the independent variable x. As the limit of Δx approaches zero, the concept of instantaneous rate of change or derivative is defined.
4/ This convention, rooted in the historical development of calculus, allows engineers to succinctly represent the process of taking derivatives.
A,
Does any of that have anything to do with the fact that you cannot even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone describe it?
No?
I suppose you must be trying to “educate” Gordon, then, whether he wants it or not.
Richard Feynman wrote “The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language.” and I agree. You can look up the rest of the quote if you wish, before you criticise me for seeking precision at times.
I’m not sure what you are trying to achieve. Maybe you could consider clarifying your intent?
in reply to 1)…wrong.
The delta symbol is never used in association with differentials. The only time you will see it used is when the variables x and y, where x is a function of y as is in y = f(x), is when delta represents a finite quantity that is measurable along the x or y axis. You will never see delta used as a differential which is so small as to be infinitesimal.
2) a small change in a variable is much larger than the infinitesimal value described by a differential. You can see it applied in expression leading up to the limit, which is an infinitesimal value, however, it is used to represent a finite value leading up to the infinitesimal value.
f'(x) =dy/dy = limit(as h ->0) of [f(x-h) – f(x)]/h represents such a function. This i iften written as
f'(x) = limit (as Δx -> 0) [f(x – Δx) – f(x)]/Δx
What we see here is a macro value, Δx, being reduced till y = f(x) reaches a limiting value.
That demonstrates the difference between dy/dx, a true infinitesimal value and delta x which is a finite value UNTIL the limit is reached. at which time Δx disappears. Until the limit is reached it is plain wrong to use delta x in place of a differential quantity.
3) is wrong as well. You said, “As the limit of Δx approaches zero…”. The limit is the value being approached and it does not have to be zero. The statement is actually, as Δx -> 0. It’s not the limit approaching 0, the function approaches the value described by the limit.
Here’s an example. If you have a semicircle sitting on the x-axis and you want to find the area under the curve of the semi-circle, you could begin by constructing a series of rectangles of equal width under the curve. If we know the number of rectangles, we can sum them and find an approximate area under the curve. However, there will always be errors where the rectangles meet the curve since there are small triangles omitted where the top of the rectangles meet the curve and those are your error value.
We can reduce this error by making the rectangle width progressively narrower. Eventually, the rectangle width will reduce to an infinitesimal value and we’ll have the exact width of the area. In this case, the curve is a function of x, that is, for each value of x between the intercepts of the curve and the x axis, there is a unique value of y = f(x). where f(x) represent the equation for the curve.
We begin with the width of the rectangles Δx and we reduce that value till Δx -> 0. We are then claiming the area of the curve will be known when Δx reaches 0. That area will be the limit.
4)Engineers are taught proper math. We are not taught to apply Δx where it does not apply. We learn math formally like any other student.
Discovery of Data for One of the Other 26 Jacoby Series
https://climateaudit.org/2023/12/12/discovery-of-data-for-one-of-the-other-26-jacoby-series/
“not a surprise to discover that the withheld data did not have a hockey stick shape”
Apparently the reconstructed temps from that core did not rise with 20th century observed temps, so either a problem with the proxy or global warming didn’t happen after all.
barry,
You wrote –
” . . . so either a problem with the proxy or global warming didnt happen after all.”
Or maybe Dr Spencer is correct, and thermometers respond to heat. Have you looked at some of the posts he has made on this blog?
Do you think thermometers are influenced by an indescribable GHE? How would that occur?
Don’t be a minge! Share your knowledge!
Testing…
Mi.ke cyn.ical ama.zed e.h
barry,
Did you pass the test?
I would be astonished if Mike Flynn couldn’t! You might well think that Mike is cynical, but that’s no reason to be amazed, eh?
Too subtle for you?
Oh well.
Could it be that tree rings are not very good thermometers?
If so, why are skeptics so sure that the MWP was warmer than the late 20th century, and that this was a global phenomenon?
Do they have better proxies?
”Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was approximately 1C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). ”
I am not saying its a better proxy just that we are within the range of various proxies and cherry picking proxies and arguing which is the better one is just mostly a process of science BS. And ”Today” was 1996.
And you also need to understand that many proxies take a longtime to lay down due to the gentle mixing of surface sediments by marine life so in discussions on this proxy its like a 50 year average peak. So in truth we underestimate what we should call global climate. If 2 degrees is what we want to avoid it should be a 2 degree anomaly for 50 years. Fact is the effects we are worried about from climate change are local. So look for 2 degree 50 year long climate length anomalies in places unaffected by UHI or the processing of UHI via gridding. The problem is when politics gets involved the smartness of science erodes. . .like with Pages 2k
So are you saying the MWP was warmer than today or not?
“And ‘Today’ was 1996.”
Hat-tip to your honesty. You realize that we have collected a vastly greater number of proxies since then.
Thats always the case Barry. Try to stop them from publishing and when they succeed fund a half dozen studies to come up with a different answer.
The make lousy thermometers. Why? Because drought is associated with cold and drought slows tree growth. So they have to go to the treeline to find any kind of correlation with other sensitivities. its a very shaky and easy to manipulate proxy that they even had to resort to Mikes Trick to hide the sudden decline in tree growth at the end of the record and usually append the thermometer record in place of the decline. Then Bin below gives us two more references with two of the original conspirators on the author list.
“Mikes Trick to hide the sudden decline in tree growth at the end of the record”
That was not Mike’s “trick”, it was someone else’s.
Do you know why you don’t know that? Because ‘skeptics’ elided the actual quote. Mike Mann is well-known, so they obscured the other name in that sentence for punchier rhetoric – which you have regurgitated 13 years after the trickery.
Whatever Barry. Mann endorsed the check.
“Whatever Barry”
Hand-wavy waffle as usual.
“Mann endorsed the check”
Gotta keep that narrative alive somehow, who cares about facts?
Mike’s Trick was a disgrace to science.
Same old, same old. McIntyre applies for a scientist’s data to verify it and he is refuse access. Phil Jones of Had-crut whined to Mac, why would I give you my data when you will only use it against me? Well, Duh!!! If your data is good, Phil, how can anyone use it against you?
When NOAA was ordered by the US government to release their data for scrutiny, they simply refused.
“4)Engineers are taught proper math. We are not taught to apply Δx where it does not apply. We learn math formally like any other student.”
Since you are already utterly confused by the most fundamental concept in differential calculus, I had better not mention that Σf(x)Δx is a fundamental concept in integral calculus, and denotes the definite integral in the limit as Δx approaches 0.
A,
With your vast knowledge, it is indeed a great pity that you cannot describe the GHE in any way which accords with reality, isn’t it?
If that’s all too hard, just say what the GHE is supposed to do! Heat, cool, neither?
How hard can it be to make a decision?
These endless, desperate McIntyre attacks on Mann’s completely outdated tree ring stuff are not only ridiculous, they get really boring after a while.
It seems like an endless film series in which the actors don’t even notice how outdated they seem because of all the routine.
I remember McIntyre’s (official) interview on Desmoblog years ago in which he admitted to being 100% obsessed with Mann’s tree ring flaws.
That will never end.
*
It’s not the first time I’ve posted the following things, let alone the last:
1. Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part I: The long term context
Rob Wilson & al. (2016)
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Wilson_2016_QSR.pdf
*
2. Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions
Kevin J. Anchukaitis & al. (2017)
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2016/03/Anchukaitis_2017_QSR.pdf
*
That is what McIntyre should run against, instead of conveniently keeping in the role of one more of these Don Quixote de la Mancha endlessly, uselessly fighting against wind mills.
Mais il ne le fera certainement pas, par crainte de s’y casser les dents.
*
And by the way: where is McIntyre’s good old anti-PCA, anti-tree ring McKittrick buddy? Does he no longer feel like shaking Mann’s MBH99’s hockey stick?
Are you referring to the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, or some other Michael Mann?
Could it be that tree rings (and other proxies) make very poor thermometers?
> That will never end.
Audits never end.
” Audits never end. ”
True, especially this one.
This (probably Berber) saying is no less true:
” Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe. “
As always, Blindsley H00d is at best able to insinuate that something could possibly be wrong, rather than actually prove it.
*
And as always too, the Flynnson coward once again manages to perfectly demonstrate what he means by the term ‘freedom of speech’.
*
Bavarian Krauts would say:
” Pfui Deibel! “
Plot me a proxy that makes a good thermometer! None of them (so far) make anything close to good!
Take your pick:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-proxy-data-reveals-climate-of-earths-distant-past/
Thank you, excellent source.
I plotted most of the standard proxy data against the actual thermometer ones and none came close. YMMV.
P.S. Your url does not (conveniently?) does not contain any thermometer data.
Richard conveniently plays dumb over the meaning of “proxy.”
Another interesting paper, more directed to an evaluation of proxy calibration and uncertainties:
Does a proxy measure up? A framework to assess and convey proxy reliability
F. Garrett Boudinot1 and Joseph Wilson (2020)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345783952_Does_a_proxy_measure_up_A_framework_to_assess_and_convey_proxy_reliability/fulltext/60a02b4392851cfdf337f135/Does-a-proxy-measure-up-A-framework-to-assess-and-convey-proxy-reliability.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb24ifX0
Binny,
You wrote –
“Another interesting paper, more directed to an evaluation of proxy calibration and uncertainties:”
No, just another appeal to authority, accompanied by a link to nothing of value.
Try harder.
Come on, wee willy, take a big step forward and get into the big-boys class. Craig Loehle, an expert on proxy data, explained how trees ring proxies are unreliable. The tree ring width used as a proxy can vary due to several factors and does not necessarily equate to temperatures in the past.
Of course, Michael Mann, being a geologist and being a first year grad when he participated in MBH98 would be unaware of that. He was still in the little boys club.
Willard plays dumb when asked to compare proxies with thermometers.
Gordon,
Tree-rings are only one of many different kinds of proxies for temperature, and not even the most numerous. Marcott et al, for example, used 80% marine proxies for their temperature reconstruction. Results between proxies are generally similar on global/hemispheric scale.
I’m skeptical about tree rings accuracy, but I also don’t have the expertise to know better. The borehole temperatures are reliable if analyzed correctly but I don’t believe they are reliable beyond two centuries.
I agree with Barry that people here seem willing to accept proxies when they show warmer temps in the MWP 1000 years ago, or the Holocene optimum 8000 y ago.
Richard feigns not knowing that if we had thermometers back then we would not use proxies.
Bindidon says:
”These endless, desperate McIntyre attacks on Manns completely outdated tree ring stuff are not only ridiculous, they get really boring after a while.”
You are just in science denial here Bin. It happens that McIntyre’s professional occupation is the detection of salted mines for the mining investment industry.
Here all he is doing is what he is a top level professional at doing and you simply are a denier. You have become so inculcated where you can’t see the writing in front of your face.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Gill goes for the deflection. His mispresentation is more interesting. The Auditor wasn’t in salted mines, but in various gigs, ranging from industrial metals (Noranda) to small oil&gas (CGX). His biggest thing was an international law dispute over some gold penny stock affair in Guyana.
A pity Gill does not have Moshpit’s photographic memory.
Salting of mines covers a lot more than spreading gold nuggets on the floor of a mine shaft Willard. Maybe you ought to try to learn a little about it before making nonsense posts like you did above.
You might start with refuting some of his work that has already been recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.
Gill is just confused about the Auditor’s coatracking of Bre-X.
Until he does like Bender implores, please don’t mind him.
Willard is appealing that folks only listen to Willard.
“Gill is just confused about the Auditors coatracking of Bre-X.
Until he does like Bender implores, please dont mind him.”
Whatever that means.
Seems pretty clear that willard does drugs.
Had Gill read the blog, he’d know what Bender implored commenters like Gill to do.
See what I mean?
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/501996891
More evidence.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Have you lost your mind?
Who is Moshpit? How do you know he has a photographic memory? Can he delve into his memory and provide a description of the GHE which agrees with reality?
You are like that other Willard, Quine, whose contribution is inconsequential. You are struggling to reach even that level!
Keep up the light relief – it’s diverting to observe the contortions of a Climate Clown.
Mike Flynn,
Who?
Why?
Wherefore?
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Have you lost your mind?
Who is Moshpit? How do you know he has a photographic memory? Can he delve into his memory and provide a description of the GHE which agrees with reality?
You are like that other Willard, Quine, whose contribution is inconsequential. You are struggling to reach even that level!
Keep up the light relief its diverting to observe the contortions of a Climate Clown.
Mike Flynn,
Gill knows who is Moshpit.
Cheers.
Hunter boy
” You are just in science denial here Bin. ”
No, I’m not at all.
You, Hunter boy, are the one who is permanently in science denial, beginning with your incredible, gut feeling based discrediting of the work of hundreds of scientist re.: lunar spin.
In that field, you are the 100% ignoramus but try to appear as a knowledgeable person (only on this blog, of course).
*
” Here all he is doing is what he is a top level professional at doing and you simply are a denier. ”
I have read much what McIntyre wrote, maybe even since longer time than you did, and with more attention and carefulness than you.
His career is long time ago, Hunter boy.
*
Like most of the pseudo-skeptical posters here, you moreover merely scan information for the presence of what you dislike, and for the absence of what you expect, instead of really going into the material.
*
I have seen many times how superficial you are, and how far from reality you are able to keep for reasons much more political than technical.
The best example was
– your absolute inability to understand that the gridding of weather station data isn’t at all a tool to artificially increase the temperatures they measure
and
– your utter lie about Roy Spencer thinking like that, as he is a man for whom data gridding of several satellite-borne soundings is a ‘conditio sine qua non’ to obtain accurate evaluations.
**
When compared to the deep technical and scientific accuracy shown by
– Dufresne / Treiner (2011) in
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
and Harde / Schnell (2022) in
– http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
the Seim / Olsen paper appears, at a first glance, of afflicting triviality: it is light years away from the two papers above, and reminds me Knut Ångström’s and R.W. Wood’s experiments.
No wonder that you like their results.
*
By the way: did you ever read Abbot’s reply to Wood’s stuff, Hunter boy?
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
Binny,
Maybe you should read your references, and post the words that support whatever you are trying to say.
Your reference concludes – “The two differences would perhaps more than counterbalance the loss of the “blanketing effect,” so that the mean temperature of the earth without water would perhaps be rather higher than now, but much less uniform. ranging from above present temperatures by day to far below 0~ C. by night.”
Just as Tyndall and everyone with a modicum of knowledge knows. Without an atmosphere, temperatures would be those experienced on the Moon, over 125 C during the day, -250 C at night.
Whether the “average” remains unchanged, if you are boiling or freezing, the “average” becomes irrelevant. Accept reality – there is no GHE.
Flynnson
Typical of your endless blah blah which consists of scanning texts and cherry-picking of one or two sentences helping you to de~ny the whole.
Blather, blather, blather.
How boring.
Binny,
Maybe you should read your references, and post the words that support whatever you are trying to say.
Your reference concludes “The two differences would perhaps more than counterbalance the loss of the blanketing effect, so that the mean temperature of the earth without water would perhaps be rather higher than now, but much less uniform. ranging from above present temperatures by day to far below 0~ C. by night.”
Just as Tyndall and everyone with a modicum of knowledge knows. Without an atmosphere, temperatures would be those experienced on the Moon, over 125 C during the day, -250 C at night.
Whether the “average” remains unchanged, if you are boiling or freezing, the “average” becomes irrelevant. Accept reality there is no GHE.
I was looking at the COP28 web site, and there is no reference whatsoever to science. The Advisory Committee does not have any scientists that I could spot, except for this one representing the USA. For those who do not know, along with John Kerry, he was one of the principle architects of the Iran Nuclear Deal. That was the deal that said the sanctions would be lifted, and they could continue there bomb development if they would just do it slowly enough. Except for his political leanings, what does he have to do with climate science?
Dr. Ernest J. Moniz is an American nuclear physicist and former government official. He served as the thirteenth US Secretary of Energy under the Obama Administration, advancing clean energy technology innovation, nuclear security, and cutting-edge scientific research capabilities. Prior to this he served as associate director for science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Moniz joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty in 1973, was founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative and is the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems emeritus. He is CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and of the Energy Futures Initiative and received the inaugural American Academy of Arts and Sciences Award for Excellence in Public Policy and Public Affairs. Dr. Moniz holds a Bachelor of Science in Physics from Boston College and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Stanford University
John Kerry claimed to be a scientist.
“During the hearing, Massie asked Kerry, “How do you get a Bachelor of Arts in a science?”
“Well, its liberal arts education and degree,” said Kerry, who holds a political science degree from Yale.
“Okay, so its not really science,” Massie said. “So, I think its somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.”
Maybe Yale needs to rename their degree to “political pseudoscience”?
My understanding is that COP is not about science, it is about working toward international agreements. IPCC is doing the science.
Wrong again. IPCC is soliciting scientific information then cherry picking what they want to push for international agreements. . .to satisfy their thirst for power.
Unsupported opinion.
I have a different understanding. Let’s get philosophical. What’s in a name? The IPCC is a purely political organization that pays science organizations and some individual scientists to attempt to demonstrate their predetermined conclusion — climate change. It is working. Successive assessment reports have expressed increasing “confidence” in their findings, and made increasingly bold statements. The underlying theme is a redistribution of wealth to poor countries that are expressly given a free pass on emission goals. Anyone attempting to express a different view is a “climate change denier” who should be ignored and vilified.
COP has the task of taking action on those predetermined conclusions about climate. They are collecting and distributing money for various purposes while reinforcing the concept of victims that need help. They have a Loss & Damage fund and a Least Developed Countries Fund.
I saw a news story about an organization of Pacific Island countries that complained they were not getting enough support. I have some sympathy for people being displace by sea level rise. The problem is that the current sea level increase has been going rather steadily since at least 1860, and the data showing an increase is not really conclusive. What happens if the AMO goes into the cool phase and sea level rise slows?
Bindidon says:
”You, Hunter boy, are the one who is permanently in science denial, beginning with your incredible, gut feeling based discrediting of the work of hundreds of scientist re.: lunar spin.”
complete and total BS. All you ever came up with was a translation of Newton saying referring the moon spin on its axis which may as well be to the spin term he used in his mathematics.
You are hundreds short on references.
We have already discredited using mathematical reduction terms as reflection of OPR. Where were you?
Bindidon says:
Here all he is doing is what he is a top level professional at doing and you simply are a denier.
I have read much what McIntyre wrote, maybe even since longer time than you did, and with more attention and carefulness than you.
His career is long time ago, Hunter boy.
———————–
Like yours?
Bindidon says:
” your absolute inability to understand that the gridding of weather station data isnt at all a tool to artificially increase the temperatures they measure”
That is exactly what it does when virtually all weather stations involve some degree of human development at the site of the measurement. And obviously the spreading UHI to 100% undisturbed environments is exactly what you get when you have a non-representative sampling program. The stations were originally set up as a representative sampling program for local activities and they do a damn good job of that. . .at least at the time its needed before you guys try to figure out why it isn’t warming enough.
Bindidon says:
your utter lie about Roy Spencer thinking like that, as he is a man for whom data gridding of several satellite-borne soundings is a conditio sine qua non to obtain accurate evaluations.
——————-
Satellite data is representative Bindidon. If you want to look for global anomalies his program is well designed. I am sure its not perfect but it doesn’t multiply error from bad design. Maybe you ought to learn a bit about proper sampling before opining on it.
Bindidon says:
**
When compared to the deep technical and scientific accuracy shown by
Dufresne / Treiner (2011) in
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
and Harde / Schnell (2022) in
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
the Seim / Olsen paper appears, at a first glance, of afflicting triviality: it is light years away from the two papers above, and reminds me Knut ngstrms and R.W. Woods experiments.
No wonder that you like their results.
*
By the way: did you ever read Abbots reply to Woods stuff, Hunter boy?
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
Binny,
Maybe you should read your references, and post the words that support whatever you are trying to say.
Your reference concludes – “The two differences would perhaps more than counterbalance the loss of the “blanketing effect,” so that the mean temperature of the earth without water would perhaps be rather higher than now, but much less uniform. ranging from above present temperatures by day to far below 0~ C. by night.”
Just as Tyndall and everyone with a modicum of knowledge knows. Without an atmosphere, temperatures would be those experienced on the Moon, over 125 C during the day, -250 C at night.
Whether the “average” remains unchanged if you are boiling or freezing. Accept reality – there is no GHE.
I didn’t finish my reply but Since you failed to identify any key points being made by those I am not going to respond until you do.
Hunter boy
You wrote:
” complete and total BS. All you ever came up with was a translation of Newton saying referring the moon spin on its axis which may as well be to the spin term he used in his mathematics.
You are hundreds short on references. ”
This is a lie, and you should know that.
I presented many times
– Newton’s original text in Latin
– different translations in English, French and German, all visibly with the same meaning.
What exactly are you once more trying to dissimulate, Hunter boy?
*
” We have already discredited using mathematical reduction terms as reflection of OPR. Where were you? ”
What do you mean here? No idea.
binny…”I presented many times
Newtons original text in Latin
different translations in English, French and German, all visibly with the same meaning”.
***
In doing so, you failed to allow for the possibility that all of the above translations were wrong. None of them talked to Newton directly about his meaning and none of them had sufficient background in physics to supply an alternative meaning.
It is clear from the words of Newton they translated, to get it that Newton had another meaning. He described lunar motion as a linear motion bent into an ellipse by Earth’s gravitational field and he specified the Moon kept the same face pointed at Earth. His meaning was clear when he described the resultant motion as ‘curvilinear’ with the Moon keeping the same face pointed at Earth. He could only have been describing a motion in which the Moon was not rotating about a local axis.
The fact that he did not elaborate on a local rotation should have made it clear that he did not acknowledge such a rotation. Had the Moon rotated on a local axis, Newton would have undoubtedly expounded on that motion and he did not.
Bindidon says:
complete and total BS. All you ever came up with was a translation of Newton saying referring the moon spin on its axis which may as well be to the spin term he used in his mathematics.
You are hundreds short on references.
This is a lie, and you should know that.
I presented many times
Newtons original text in Latin
different translations in English, French and German, all visibly with the same meaning.
—————————–
Pay attention Bindidon. Even Newton didn’t specify that he was talking about the physical reality of the moon rather than the mathematical reduction term in doing lunar calculations.
What you need is one source arguing that that SIR is identical to OPR.
” That is exactly what it does when virtually all weather stations involve some degree of human development at the site of the measurement. And obviously the spreading UHI to 100% undisturbed environments is exactly what you get when you have a non-representative sampling program. The stations were originally set up as a representative sampling program for local activities and they do a damn good job of that. . .at least at the time its needed before you guys try to figure out why it isnt warming enough. ”
*
You don’t understand at all what ‘gridding’ means.
Its purpose is to avoid the bias introduced by regions with very high amounts of stations which distort the end averaging of station data.
The simplest comparison is to construct a global time series out of 40,000 stations of which 20,000 are in the US.
The result is then a Globe looking like US’s backyard.
*
The next comparison is inside of the US where you have regions with about 10 stations per grid cells whose values simply disappear in a global average when other US grid cells contain more than 300 stations.
If you don’t (want to) understand that 101 station data processing, then there is no reason to discuss the point with you.
*
Further you write:
” Satellite data is representative Bindidon. If you want to look for global anomalies his program is well designed. I am sure its not perfect but it doesnt multiply error from bad design. Maybe you ought to learn a bit about proper sampling before opining on it. ”
Here again, you didn’t understand what the gridding is about, namely to avoid data bulks distorting the whole picture.
*
It is manifest that you never processed any climate data, hence your posts are exclusively based on your personal interpreations and gut feeling.
I processed data from various weather station sets (GHCN V3, USHCN, daily, USCRN, V4), tide gauges, and even UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data.
If you had done the same since 2015, you would write quite different things.
Binny,
The point is not whether thermometers are getting hotter – that’s purely a matter of observation.
The question is why is this happening?
What’s your answer? Are you going to be silly, and claim it’s due to a supernatural force called the GHE, which only occurs when the Sun is shining brightly? A solar powered GHE, perhaps?
What’s making thermometers hotter, do you think?
Flynnson
Blather, blather, blather.
Everywhere the same, irrelevant stuff.
How boring.
Binny,
The point is not whether thermometers are getting hotter thats purely a matter of observation.
The question is why is this happening?
Whats your answer? Are you going to be silly, and claim its due to a supernatural force called the GHE, which only occurs when the Sun is shining brightly? A solar powered GHE, perhaps?
Whats making thermometers hotter, do you think?
Was there any thermometer when the Earth was molten, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote-
“Was there any thermometer when the Earth was molten, Mike?”
How would I know? Have you looked it up on the internet?
When you find out, let me know.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Why should I care how you would know?
You said the Earth was 800C. Where were the thermometers back then?
Bindidon says:
You dont understand at all what gridding means.
Its purpose is to avoid the bias introduced by regions with very high amounts of stations which distort the end averaging of station data.
————————–
I agree its a process of trying to fix a non-representative dataset by selectively eliminating biases. Yes indeed! Like hand selecting sacred trees in Siberia. Seems to me money would be far better spent pursuing monitoring strategies that are representative and ones that eliminate human bias.
I’d like to add to Bill’s comment that Roy explained gridding as the need to get away from scanning techniques where the scanning depth changes. As it changes, they have to use a different set of weighting functions for each scanning depth. That’s part of the reason they introduced 2 other channels into the calculations.
swannie…”Adding water vapor to a mass of warm air at the surface decreases its density”.
***
I would think, since density = mass/volume, that adding mass to a volume would increase the density, not decrease it. However, I don’t buy this nonsense about air having a mass, in the sense that it can weigh a certain amount. If that was the case we’d be flattened by the mass of air above our heads. When we talk about an air mass we are talking about the summation of all atomic/molecular weights of the constituent atoms/molecules, however, they cannot act together like a solid mass.
Ergo, when you have a mass of air, it cannot represent a potential energy as a unit since each particle of air is acting independently. It’s not like a solid piece of granite where all the atom work as a unit. If all particles were acting horizontally against a surface that would be another matter. However, air molecules acting purely vertically under the force of gravity obviously have little effect on the human body.
By the way, none of the SkyDragon cultists show the slightest interest in, or knowledge of, thermometry.
Here’s a definition plucked off the internet –
“Thermometry is a discipline of physics that deals with temperature measurement and the design and usage of thermometers & pyrometers. Temperature measurement, also known as thermometry, is significant in various activities such as manufacturing, scientific research and medical treatment.”
A tree is neither a thermometer nor a pyrometer. It’s a tree. Temperatures are measured with thermometers, not trees.
Only blockheads confuse trees with thermometers.
How do you know that the surface was molten 4.5 billion years ago when there were no thermometers?
Earlier, Tim Folkerts made some small concession to reality, when he responded to me stating facts –
“The thing is, you are usually half right, and your critiques are usually half right. And the discussions steamroll ahead before any sort of resolution can be achieved.”
Well, that’s a start. All Tim has to do is specify which “half” is right, and which “half” is wrong. Fat chance, of course.
It’s pretty simple Tim, facts are facts. You seem to be accusing a “discussion” of steamrolling ahead (whatever that means).
If it means you cannot actually bring yourself to admit that you are at least “half” wrong, and show why, then I suppose you have to find some way of wriggling out of saying anything factual. Claiming that a “discussion” has steamrolled ahead without resolution is as silly an excuse as any.
Don’t blame me for your lack of knowledge – that just makes you look even more mentally deficient!
I don’t mind Tim but he tends to sway between thought-experiment and fact, regarding it as OK to claim fact based on thought experiments.
I took up his challenge regarding elliptical orbital motion, in which he made some good points. When I returned with a conceivable answer, he dismissed it with a ‘No’, implying he is right and I am wrong. However, he failed to address the points I had made which are based on engineering problem solving using trigonometry and basic calculus.
Swenson, Here are a few examples found upstream in this post …
“If the donkeys use a Thermos bottle as an example of their brilliant thinking, they are definitely off with the fairies ” but we dont (at least not to explain the earth or its atmosphere).
“Tim, the reason why the maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere” and the reason why the average temperature on the Moon is less that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere.
“barry wont even accept that sometimes even a warmer object cannot stop the surface from cooling, An example is where a low level inversion exists at night.” But we can explain this easily. And it doesn’t contradict the theory behind hte GHE.
“John Tyndall observed that a black bulb thermometer records increasing temperature as one ascends” but again, this is not contradictory to the correct physics we express. Black solids and clear gases are allowed to behave differently.
“Unfortunately, the surface cools at night the photons emitted by the atmosphere dont appear to be having any effect at all! ” but those photons could be slowing the cooling — an idea you don;t seem to even realize exists between “completely preventing cooling” and “having no effect on cooling”.
“The Earth has cooled. No GHE. ”
A non-sequitur. Both can be true simultaneously.
Half-truths half-understandings abound. And strawmen.
Swenson asks “Could you explain the science for those who dont understand?”
That is a rather tall order for a blog (especially when the post is about a completely different topic). People spend years studying science to understand. You are not going to get two paragraphs that will make it all clear to you. At some point you would have to actually take some thermo courses and/or read the literature and/or talk to people who do understand. For months and years, not seconds and minutes.
We could try focusing on one specific example above, but all of these require considerable background knowledge. And they probably require more time than either of us is willing to invest.
Tim,
OK. One at a time –
“Tim, the reason why the maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere” and the reason why the average temperature on the Moon is less that of the Earth is precisely because it has no atmosphere.
I make a factual statement, you start babbling about something different – average temperatures.
Now tell me precisely why my statement is only “half right”.
It’s 100% right. A fact
Tell me why you think it’s only “half right”. If you can’t, accept the fact the fact that I have reason to categorise you as a “half wit”.
One thing at a time.
So far, you are just trying to add something irrelevant (an average), trying to avoid admitting that I was factually correct. How about you just admit that I was correct?
swannie…”As the parcels of air rise, they gains potential energy doe to the increase in altitude. As they cool and the water is removed as precipitation, they will sink and the gravity potential energy will be converted back to an increase in temperature. The cooling is the result of the EM radiation to higher elevations and to space above the Tropopause”.
***
Swannie tries to school me on physics but unfortunately Swannie never studied physics. He still thinks heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. In a similar manner, he seems to think that potential energy can be created out of nothing.
A gain in potential energy in a gravitational field can only be accomplished by applying an external force to a mass. To raise a mass off the Earth’s surface requires a force to lift it to a higher elevation hence a high potential energy.
That is true in general but particles as small as atoms and molecules have a way of defying gravity. Otherwise, all atoms and molecules of air would eventually settle to the surface and pile up as a mass of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, CO2, etc. Not only that, they have a means of ordering themselves in a layered fashion dependent on the strength of the gravitational field at a certain elevation.
Ergo, potential energy related to air molecules and atoms is not easily defined if at all. Heated air rises due to a buoyancy issue and that’s about a difference in air density between heated air and colder air above. The heated air pushes up into the denser cold air above and as it pushes upward, colder air from above falls down and below it, helping to push it higher.
According to Lindzen, this convective action is what keeps the surface at a moderate temperature in which we can survive. Without this overturning of hotter and colder air, the surface temperature would rise to 70C.
But what happens to the heated air as it rises? You cannot refer to an air mass as an actual mass on which gravity operate. If it was a mass, it could never rise due to buoyancy. Air like water has bouyancy because it is made of particles. In air, the particles act independently and if each particle has higher energy, it can push up into the colder and thinner air above. If all particles in the mass do that, the entire mass rises.
At the same time, this mass of higher energy particles is thermal energy, or heat, and those higher energy particles are taking heat from the surface and transferring that heat upwardly into the atmosphere. However, as the mass of particles rises, and encounters thinner air, it too thins out. As it thins out it loses pressure, hence temperature.
Talking about a transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy is an intangible because the energies referenced don’t exist. There is no energy at altitude to which heat can be transferred. Heat is the KE of the molecules and as individual particles, there is no sense in talking about the PE of an air mass. The word mass simply does not fit air molecules which individually can defy gravity.
A question, which I doubt has an answer, is why air molecules can defy gravity as they do. If you take a flask of CO2 gas at sea level, you can pour it like a liquid into another flask and it will pour like a liquid. It does not try to escape from the flask. So why is it claimed that CO2 molecules are well-mixed in the atmosphere? Why don’t the heavier CO2 molecules sink to the bottom? Until questions like that can be answered there is little point speculating about potential energy of particles.
I am sticking with my theory that heat simply disappears as an air parcel rises into thinner air and the overall KE of the parcel disappears into thin air, so to speak. The conservation of energy ‘THEORY’ is far too general as written, it fails to cover energy that simply thins out and eventually disappears into an infinitesimal quantity.
EM energy from the Sun is strong enough to warm us at 93 million miles but I doubt if it is felt out at Pluto. Beyond the solar system it may reach a point where the EM energy it generate as light is insufficient to be detected.
Gordon Robertson
Are you for real? You wonder how CO2 can mix in the atmosphere. Have you no understanding of turbulence? It is difficult to accept you are so devoid of thought process that you can’t figure that out. You do know that mud is heavier than water? Yet in turbulent water you can get muddy water!
Gordon Robertson
You think the light from the Sun is undetectable after Pluto. Have you ever been outside on a clear night and looked at stars? Most are average and you can see the light from them. Our closest neighbor is 25 trillion miles away yet you can see it’s light.
Gordon Robertson
Your disappearing energy IS NOT a theory. It is just a idea you came up with based upon your complete lack of any science. You convince me you are a shameless liar! You pretend you took college physics (which I have) but you zero understanding of even basic physics. It is hopless to attempt educating you since you do not realize how ignorant you are and will lie to yourself. I wonder if you are so deluded you actually believe you studied physics.
gordo wrote a lot of words, including:
Adding water vapor to a mass of warm air at the surface decreases it’s density. Like a boat “floating” on water, the forcing is from the surrounding colder, dryer, denser air which LIFTS the warm air mass upwards. Summer rain storms tend to be local events, because convection is a cyclic process, the colder, dryer air from above must sink outside the convection column to keep the process going.
Gordo rambles on, concluding that:
“Of course, the energy doesnt “disappear”, all of it eventually leaves the Earth beyond the TOA as thermal IR energy.
Disappear – vanish from sight, cease to be visible.
What happened to the “conservation of energy” if the energy “leaves the Earth”?
Does “energy in” still equal “energy out” if some has “left”?
Sounds dodgy to me.
Mike Flynn,
Either energy balances, or it does not. The greenhouse effect exists.
Cheers.
So do you think the greenhouse effect is enough to cause the surface to absorb more energy than it loses from the molten core. How small is that number anyway?
There is a school of thought that is pretty popular that the ghe is proportional to the total size of the atmosphere. That actually makes a lot of sense since as you dig down into the earth the soil gets warmer pretty rapidly. But that being the cause of the GHE pretty much skewers the current mainstream greenhouse effect hypothesis where the loss of heat from the core is simply handwaved away lest anybody think that the size of the atmosphere plays a major role as it is believed by many is the cause of Venus being so warm having an atmosphere 90times larger than the earth and a molten core as well.
If some has left that’s energy out.
Trouble getting your mind to work?
“It does not try to escape from the flask. ”
Yes. It does. Leave that flask uncovered for a month — even in a still room — and much of the CO2 will have diffused out and other air will have diffused in.
The actual earth has weather and has had billions of years of mixing. CO2 does mix. Gases mix. And that is a good thing, since otherwise all the O2 would be in a layer above the CO2 and N2.
“Until questions like that can be answered … ”
It fascinates me how people imagine that if THEY don’t know the answer, then NO ONE knows the answer. Diffusion and mixing in gases is not a mystery.
The better statement (for anyone in any discussion) would be “Until *I* understand a topic, there is little point in *ME* speculating about the topic.”
what one expects tim if somebody who claims to know the answer and deems it worthy of regulating others that they detail the mathematics in formulas established as the laws of physics in a manner that at least trained physicists universally agree and then that it is a problem of sufficient importance that needs to be solved by those who by virtue of their vote agree.
since climate change has yet to jump even the first hurtle that’s where we stand. noone here even knows of the existence of this scientific blueprint yet the feel justified to try to foist it on others by force.
binny…”These endless, desperate McIntyre attacks on Manns completely outdated tree ring stuff are not only ridiculous, they get really boring after a while”.
***
Binny emerges from his Medieval mind set to cast more doo doo at a wall.
McIntyre’s arguments attracted the attention of statistics expert Ross McKitrick and they formed a team to attack the hockey stick’s destruction of statistical methods. They tried to attract the attention of the IPCC through poobah Susan Solomon and she finally passed them off onto Working Group 9, who statistics expert Wegmann flagged as nepotic. They were all friends of Mann and cited only the work of each other, including Mann.
Finally, M&M got the US government to investigate. They appointed the National Academy of Science and statistics expert Wegmann, and they pared back the claims of Mann et al to the point their study became ineffective. Wegmann confirmed the suspicions of M&M and NAS rule that the Mann study could not be applied before 1600 and more importantly, for the entire 20th century.
The IPCC went even further, altering the Mann hockey stick to begin at 1850 and adding so many error bars it became so unintelligible it was called the ‘spaghetti graph’. Furthermore, they re-instated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which Mann et al had eliminated because it interfered with the nice straight shaft they had developed.
Worse still, Mann et al got the blade by cheating. When their illegitimate pine bristle cone proxy began to show cooling when real temperatures were rising,, Mann simply cut off the bad proxy data and substituted real temperatures.
And you are defending this chicanery?
Yeah the pull Mann off the author list and do the same thing that Mann did and claim the Mann data is now out of date. McIntyre already went over the Pages 2K datasets in several posts.
Pull Mann, Briffa, Bradley, Hughes off the author list and you still have a couple dozen reconstructions with similar results. Even skeptic Craig Loehle’s 2008 “hockey stick” has temps in the MWP lower than today, though in 2008, when he wrote it, the difference was non-significant.
And even if MWP was warmer than today, so what? The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago. What does this tell us, exactly?
barry,
Reconstruction = fantasy.
“The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago. What does this tell us, exactly?”
That the surface has cooled, knucklehead.
And yet temperatures 40 years ago, 100 years ago and during the Little Ice Age, and during the last major glaciation 20,000 years ago were colder than today.
So it’s gotten warmer, knucklehead.
Why is your observation more meaningful than the one above? Is there anything more to it than “the temperature changes?”
barry,
Reconstruction = fantasy.
The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago. What does this tell us, exactly?
That the surface has cooled, knucklehead.
Accept reality.
[MIKE FLYNN] Reconstruction = fantasy.
[ALSO MIKE FLYNN] Surface originally – molten.
Yeah, proxies aren’t thermometers, but he knows the temperature of the Earth’s surface 4.5 billion years ago.
Oblivious to his own contradictions is he.
bumbling barry,
If you don’t want to believe that the surface of the Earth was originally molten, you are free to do so.
If you don’t want to believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you can believe that too.
You can even believe in a GHE, if you wish.
Go for it.
Oblivious to his own contradictions is he.
bumbling barry,
If you dont want to believe that the surface of the Earth was originally molten, you are free to do so.
If you dont want to believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you can believe that too.
You can even believe in a GHE, if you wish.
Go for it.
And gee these guys have been in here claiming that CO2 has been slowing the globes cooling now for billions of years. . .and now they are denying it? They must all be on drugs.
And now Gill forgets that he denies the greenhouse himself, which makes him a Sky Dragon crank. As he forgotten to take his meds again?
See what I mean? Drugs is the ‘most likely’ issue.
Willard has no argument except to construct strawmen and define any skepticism as a denial of the temperature outside.
Is there a GHE? Well water vapor does transport close to a 100w/m2 up into the atmosphere by a process that isn’t equal in and equal out.
And when one takes Stefan Boltzmann at face value (without assuming one way glass theories) the GHE is likely only a handful of watts at most. . .suggesting loudly of course that the popular theory promoted by BS science like the 3rd grader radiation model is just that.
barry says:
”Pull Mann, Briffa, Bradley, Hughes off the author list and you still have a couple dozen reconstructions with similar results. ”
No you don’t.
Yes, you do.
You definitely do. Here are some of them:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
Reconstructions? Wishful thinking from GHE cultists!
Tell us a little more about the molten core Earth, Mike.
The only people who backup MBH are their colleagues. Amman and Wahl for example were students of Mann.
The link I posted 3 comments above yours is to more than 3 dozen reconstructions. Only two of them are MBH. The other 3 dozen are almost all not by Amman and Wahl. They all tell a similar story.
When you are in the tea leaf reading business you have to really work hard for customers to sell your BS to.
the top variables for tree growth is having enough water and sunlight.
The problem in Siberia which doesn’t get much rain or snow fall (about 9.5 inches per year). Even Los Angeles which constantly suffers droughts gets 12 inches per year.
And of course the sun is no doubt several dozen watts weaker than in Los Angeles to maximize their random variability.
So obviously if you want some trees with unique growth patterns its a great place to go cherry pick trees to use as a thermometer to get the results you are looking for with a minimum effort.
Just like Gill forgets that temperature graphs represent anomalies, he forgets that it is the change in the conditions from year to year that matters.
One day he will get there.
Farmers have recorded the changes in growing conditions from year to year, decade to decade, century to century now for at least a couple of millennia.
What we are talking about is why does that escape you and cause you to bloviate all over the place that the sky is falling?
Obviously your reading list is a bit truncated.
Go back and read through Steve McIntyre’s archives. He hasn’t yet found one that supports your position on this matter, including Pages2K.
Sure perhaps he doesn’t have the resources to examine them all, but he doesn’t have the funding power the gang of academic institutions has.
This is just an small inkling at what the growing populist movement is getting at. A guy on the street with any degree of street smarts can see what is going on. And all you will be ever to influence will be that group of kids under your tutelage. And even that group you won’t retain unless you find some way to educate them so poorly they end up on welfare and dependent upon handouts from the State. So far education isn’t quite that bad, at least at the collegiate level so there the focus is on building huge international corporations to control their thinking and holding employment over their heads. That approach truly is the blueprint for fascism.
Gordon, you got one or two things almost right in the above screed. This is significant progress.
“Furthermore, they re-instated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which Mann et al had eliminated”
Have you read the paper?
“Our reconstruction thus supports the no-tion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium…
While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous…
The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels.”
The ‘handle’ is warmest in the 20th century, and second warmest in the medieval period. They MWP was not “eliminated” – that is a denialist meme.
“Our reconstruction . . .”.
“In our dreams . . .”
The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago
Really?
Better still, Barry, read the discussions of MBH in the Climategate emails. One of them lamented the MWP and LIA while deliberating on ways to get rid of them.
To show their level of maturity and ignorance, consider that the only critique Bradley had of the investigation of the hockey stick by NAS and Wegmann was that Wegmann plagiarized his work. Anyone with any sense is wondering how an investigator of your work could possibly be plagiarizing you.
Even at that, Wegmann pointed out that he cited Bradley once and though that sufficient. Bradley had no comment on the chicanery employed in their study that was revealed officially by Wegmann, just that Wegmann had allegedly plagiarized him.
Why you continue to defend these amateurs and their deeply flawed study is the question.
Excuse me, Gordon.
You said MBH tried to “eliminate” the MWP – but it is discussed in the paper and its warmth is compared to other warm periods in the record. I’ve quoted straight from the paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/1999GL900070
You can also see high temps at that time in the ‘handle’ of the hockey stick.
I’ve repeated myself because you ignored it in your reply.
You are wrong. Own up. Stop spinning.
barry,
You aren’t denying that the Earth warms and cools due to magic, are you?
Nobody seems to be proposing any other reasons which dont require magic at some point.
Even the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann doesn’t seem to have any ideas!
Maybe the magical GHE causes cooling and warming?
Some donkey (you) wrote –
“An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Do you think that the Earth cooled because the GHE stopped working for a while? A failure of basic thermodynamics, perhaps.
Maybe the GHE is a figment of a cultist fantasy! What do you think about that?
Mike Flynn,
You’re not trying to suggest that your Molten Core bit is relevant, are you?
Poor Swenson. It’s like watching a mind descend into madness. Has to be senility that causes this disjointed raving. It’s getting worse.
barry,
You arent denying that the Earth warms and cools due to magic, are you?
Nobody seems to be proposing any other reasons which dont require magic at some point.
Even the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann doesnt seem to have any ideas!
Maybe the magical GHE causes cooling and warming?
Some donkey (you) wrote
“An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Do you think that the Earth cooled because the GHE stopped working for a while? A failure of basic thermodynamics, perhaps.
Maybe the GHE is a figment of a cultist fantasy! What do you think about that?
You are Mike Flynn. There is a greenhouse effect.
Long live and prosper.
There is a greenhouse effect.”
Which results in you saying the result is “not cooling, slower cooling”, does it?
How about faster warming and slower cooling.
Cause the surface of the Earth both cools and warms on various intervals.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
It is time to look elsewhere and retool.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
–
At the same distance from the sun, Earth receives 28% less solar energy (higher Albedo), but Earth rotates
very much faster…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
( N*cp )^1/16.
–
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing the planetary surface temperatures, the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon emerges:
–
Planets’ and moons’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
–
( N*cp )^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)^1/4 ]^1/4
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What rubbish.
Tell me, what is mean surface temperature of a planet that does not rotate but is situated very close to the sun?
i.e. N=0.
Would it be zero K?
A planet always has a diurnal cycle, because rotatate or not, planet orbits sun.
–
Thus N >0 is always present.
Don’t be obtuse.
You know very well that a planet situated vey close to the sun with a very low value for N will always have a very high mean surface temperature.
Your equation therefore makes no sense at all.
stoopidb…Christos is a lot smarter than you’ll ever be, better to pay attention and learn.
Earlier, some knucklehead wrote –
“That is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.
An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Which obviously doesnt apply to the Earth as a whole, which has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, nor to the Earth’s surface in the absence of sunlight, which cools every night!
The same knucklehead doesnt acknowledge that if the “continual energy” comes from a source with a temperature less than that of the object being described – the object will cool!
Or if the “continual energy” comes from a source hotter than the object, but has insufficient energy to overcome losses from the object, then the object will cool!
Examples –
– a Thermos of hot soup in a freezer at 250 K (- 23 C) is receiving continual energy. The soup does not get hotter, in spite of being well insulated.
– four and a half billion years of sunlight from a 5600 K source has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling.
Others can decide whether the latest knucklehead GHE description describes reality or fantasy.
What does a lava-covered surface 4.5 billion years ago have to do with the GHE?
Absolutely nothing.
barry,
The Earth has cooled. No GHE. Nothing stopped the cooling at all.
Hi usual ignorant strawman. No one claims it should have prevented the cooling of a molten Earth!
Nate,
You wrote –
“No one claims it should have prevented the cooling of a molten Earth!”
Well, that’s good to hear. Anybody claiming that is obviously a dingleberry, aren’t they?
So the GHE didn’t stop the Earth from cooling to its present temperature. Glad you agree.
You’d look like a complete buffRp4;oon if you claimed otherwise. Good thing you didn’t.
“four and a half billion years of sunlight from a 5600 K source has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling.”
And 4.5 billion years of the sun getting steadily hotter while the Earth cooled.
Does this mean that if the sun increased its output by 5% today, the surface would not warm?
That is the consequence of your daft argumentation, knucklehead.
The distant past does not dictate the factors affecting global temperature today.
It is warmer now than the last glaciation 20,000 years ago. It is warmer now than the Little Ice Age. It is warmer now that 100 years ago, and than 40 years ago.
The Earth has warmed, knucklehead!
First the knucklehead (by the way, thanks for the flattery by imitation, barry) wrote –
“What does a lava-covered surface 4.5 billion years ago have to do with the GHE?”, acknowledging that the present Earth has cooled.
Then, barry wrote –
“It is warmer now than the last glaciation 20,000 years ago. It is warmer now than the Little Ice Age. It is warmer now that 100 years ago, and than 40 years ago.
The Earth has warmed, knucklehead!”
Well, no, barry, the Earth doesnt just cool, then warm, for no good reason at all. You claim that the Sun has been getting hotter (whatever that is supposed to mean), while the Earth cooled anyway! According to NASA the Sun is not getting hotter, but maybe they don’t know what you know, eh?
Surrounding a cooling sphere with a thin layer of gas doesnt make it hotter. That’s just nonsense. Stop trying to cherry pick – over four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled, whether you want to accept it or not.
Maybe you should look at what Dr Spencer has been posting. His mind seems more open than yours. He might even be smarter than you!
Carry on dreaming, knucklehead!
“Well, no, barry, the Earth doesnt just cool, then warm, for no good reason at all.”
Who said that it did?
It cools and warms for various good reasons. It hasn’t just cooled since formation, the temp has gone up and down and up and down.
“According to NASA the Sun is not getting hotter, but maybe they dont know what you know, eh?”
You’re confusing your time scales again. NASA says:
“The Sun was about 30% less luminous in its youth than it is now… Over time, as stellar nucleosynthesis has gone on in the Sun, making more and more helium and carbon and such, the Sun has slowly gotten hotter and brighter.”
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/education/alp/sun-when-it-formed/
Did you forget we were talking about the last 4.5 billion years? Either you didn’t and you are being deceitful yet again, or you did and you’re simply senile.
So, a warming sun didn’t make the Earth hotter over 4.5 billion years.
From your specious argumentation the conclusion is that the sun has no influence on the surface temperature.
If you believe that you’re an eejit. If you don’t believe that, why are you making specious arguments based on 4.5 billion years of general cooling?
No, your refrain about the molten surface is as irrelevant as it is vacuous.
The surface is not cooling from a molten state today, so we can concern ourselves with the factors that currently influence global temperature, and we can be less dim-witted about the time scales we refer to.
Well, you can’t, obviously.
bumbling barry,
You quoted and wrote –
“Well, no, barry, the Earth doesnt just cool, then warm, for no good reason at all.
Who said that it did?”
It cools and warms for various good reasons. It hasnt just cooled since formation, the temp has gone up and down and up and down.”
You just said it cools and warms, you dingleberry!
You say there are “good reasons”. You just can’t produce any, can you?
The Earth does not heat up and cool down for no reason at all. It’s a large lump of glowing hot matter, too far from the sun to even maintain its molten surface. It has cooled, as it must. Ask any real scientist, who will tell you it is losing heat at a rate of about 44TW or so.
A body losing heat is cooling, whether you accept it or not.
The Earth does not cool down and heat up, just because you say so.
“You just said it cools and warms”
That’s right. You can quote me correctly but unfortunately can’t follow the argument. That’s due to your mendacious obtuseness. No argument from you, just argumentativeness. Tedious as usual.
barry,
If you want to believe that the Earth warms and cools by magic, fine. You haven’t said you don’t, have you?
If you don’t want to disagree that this is due to magic, is fine by me. If you have any other explanations, I don’t blame you for keeping them secret.
You might not like being laughed at. I understand.
barry…”The Sun was about 30% less luminous in its youth than it is now Over time, as stellar nucleosynthesis has gone on in the Sun, making more and more helium and carbon and such, the Sun has slowly gotten hotter and brighter.”
***
It’s amazing how NASA, claiming to be a scientific organization, manages to dabble in intangibles. We know from their claim that the Moon rotate once per orbit, which is not possible while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, that their guesses about the temperature and composition of the Sun are likely just as skewed.
The notion that a gas plasma can warm by means of byproducts of its thermonuclear activity, which would normally mean byproduct of cooling, is highly questionable. It would be a new invention if chemicals could burn while producing byproducts that increased the heat of the reaction. Normally such products, catalysts, have to be added externally.
If that was the case, stars would never burn out. Like any other reaction, however, they expend energy as light and heat while using up fuel and eventually cool and burn out.
You’ve missed the point again.
barry,
If you want to believe that the Earth warms and cools by magic, fine. You havent said you dont, have you?
If you dont want to disagree that this is due to magic, is fine by me. If you have any other explanations, I dont blame you for keeping them secret.
You might not like being laughed at. I understand.
What are you blathering about, Mike?
barry,
If you want to believe that the Earth warms and cools by magic, fine. You havent said you dont, have you?
If you dont want to disagree that this is due to magic, is fine by me. If you have any other explanations, I dont blame you for keeping them secret.
You might not like being laughed at. I understand.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: ” We know from their claim that the Moon rotate once per orbit, which is not possible while keeping the same face pointed at Earth,”
It is possible and does. You have never attempted to take two cans and move one in an orbital path keeping the same side of the “orbiting” can facing the center can. You will find you have to rotate the orbiting can in order to keep it facing the center can. You will not attempt this as your Ego will not allow you to demonstrate your error in thought. It is not hard to do this test but you never will. If you can accomplish it without any rotation make a video and show NASA their error. You won’t do this however so you will keep making your false claims.
I can’t hope to understand your point on hot plasma. The byproducts of any exothermic reaction are hotter than the original. When H2 combines with O2 the byproduct H2O is hotter than the gasses before reaction. I really am clueless on your point.
A fire is exactly the process of byproducts increasing the heat of the reaction, that is what sustains burning. The byproducts (CO2 in many cases) has more energy than the carbon and oxygen because of the chemical reaction. This increased energy raises the temperature of the carbon and oxygen allowing sustained burning. Without the increased energy of the byproducts warming the carbon and oxygen the fire would burn out. You really do not know any science do you?
Yeah, he can’t. So why bother trying?
Don’t feed the t.r.o.l.l.
Ken, what makes you think he values your opinion?
What are you going to do if he ignores you?
Hold your breath until you turn blue? I’d like to see that!
Carry on.
barry says:
four and a half billion years of sunlight from a 5600 K source has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling.
And 4.5 billion years of the sun getting steadily hotter while the Earth cooled.
Does this mean that if the sun increased its output by 5% today, the surface would not warm?
That is the consequence of your daft argumentation, knucklehead.
The distant past does not dictate the factors affecting global temperature today.
It is warmer now than the last glaciation 20,000 years ago. It is warmer now than the Little Ice Age. It is warmer now that 100 years ago, and than 40 years ago.
The Earth has warmed, knucklehead!
———————-
Looks like Barry is calling out science and proclaiming that heat in the core of the earth has been going in and not out.
Reminiscent of the “heat creep” speculation of another commenter, where sunlight was absorbed on the surface of a cold Earth, and accumulated in the interior – due to magic presumably. Probably explains Al Gore’s “millions of degrees” at the center of the Earth!
A speculation shared by Carl Sagan, James Hansen, and others, who appear to believe that the Earth has warmed from a colder origin, without being silly enough to specifically say so. A present day adherent to “heat creep” is Kevin Trenberth, who believes that heat from the Sun can penetrate into the ocean depths, and hide there – more magic.
After the passage of the tropical storm, the surface temperature of the Coral Sea dropped a lot. Corals can be satisfied.
https://i.ibb.co/FJds6Hk/cdas-sflux-ssta-aus-1.png
It took time, a very long time. But, at COP28 the petro-states acknowledged that the use of fossil fuels is causing harm, and they have agreed to “transition away from fossil fuel.” This is an historic admission of guilt … that science told of decades ago.
The first step is admitting; then it’s one day at a time.
https://youtu.be/v7t9PuR32l8
What rubbish.
Tell me, what is mean surface temperature of a planet that does not rotate but is situated very close to the sun?
i.e. N=0.
Would it be zero K?
studentb,
I’m sure I don’t know – you tell me.
And why your answer is correct, of course, just to convince everyone you aren’t just another GHE cultist troll.
I’m sure you don’t know………much about anything.
Apologies comrade Arkady.
My post was not meant for you.
Comrade studentb,
I deduced from context that your post was not addressed to me, and apologies are acknowledged though not necessary.
Actually, “rubbish” is a good word for the COP28 nonsense.
As in, unscientific consensus is rubbish.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574781
Oooooooh! A link!
How clever!
An adjective. In this economy?
Mike sure spends a lot of thought on his braying!
Your propaganda rivals that of the snotty-nosed juvenile Greta Thunberg. It’s amazing that you have time to post here while demonstrating at art galleries by throwing paint on art pieces and gluing yourself to walls.
Are you not missing a meeting of the converted over at SkS or realclimate?
For nut cases like Bordo’s there is help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
Another pointless and irrelevant link, is it?
Mike Flynn,
I saw *White Noise* the other day thanks to the greenhouse effect:
https://youtu.be/JG17jiPdbb0
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
COP28 just a bunch of buffoonery that will eventually destroy the UN.
While these elitist power seekers bloviate over setting standards for the world, one has to give some recognition to the master stroke of appointing a Saudi Prince to the chair.
Saudi Arabia has been trying to restrict the production of fossil fuels since the days of the Arab Oil Embargo for the purpose of forcing rising prices.
The Saudis are in perfect position here to encourage states to raise taxes on fossil fuels, punish the poor, and really accomplish nothing else.
A perfect position is when you can get the world to restrict supply and not only do you profit from higher prices you are also the tax collector. True genius! Especially when you can get a whole batch of bubble heads to exalt for over program.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Craig Loehle published a reconstruction of past temperatures, based on 18 proxies previously reported in the scientific literature [1]. I compared data provided by Loehle with that from the original data sources and found several errors, primarily due to incorrect conversion from 14C dates BP to calendar dates. As a result of these and other findings and subsequent discussions, Loehle produced a correction [2]. Loehles correction changes the 18 data sets used previously to adjust for the dating errors. (The data series referenced are listed in the corrected paper, along with links to the original data sets). Loehle originally claimed that the data was taken as is without interpolation [1], a statement which was incorrect. In the corrected version, Loehle chose to convert all the data into continuous time series, using interpolation [2]. Some of the original proxy series used analytical methods which produced an average value
over a period of time, as would occur when samples of sediment was removed from a core at a fixed interval of distance along the core. When such data are plotted, the result should appear as a bar with the width dependant on the sampling procedure and
the height being the single average value produced by analysis of the sample. This result is not the same as an interpolated time series, which would resemble a saw tooth pattern, the peak or valley being placed at each value from the original time
series. The fact is that there is no information available outside the averaging period, yet, the interpolation process fills in data values for these intermediate dates. Thus,
interpolation can result in an inaccurate representation of the data. Applying a centered moving average to the interpolated series can further distort the data.
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830508784815964
Some “expert on proxy data” our cranks got there!
Reconstruction = fantasy.
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. No cherry picking to be seen, unlike the GHE cultists who blabber on about 20,000 years, 200 years, “since records began” – or hottest day since last summer!
What a herd of madly kicking donkeys! Lashing out in all directions!
There is no GHE, whether over the four and a half billion years of the surface cooling, or last night!
All good fun, though.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Do you agree with what you quoted –
“The fact is that there is no information available outside the averaging period, yet, the interpolation process fills in data values for these intermediate dates. Thus,
interpolation can result in an inaccurate representation of the data. Applying a centered moving average to the interpolated series can further distort the data.”
Got no data? No worries, just make it up and hope nobody will notice!
How clever is that?
There is no data corroborating that the surface of the Earth was molten 4.5 billion years ago.
Yet you claim this to be true while dismissing science that infills data.
You contradict yourself at every turn. You have nothing to offer but contrariness. You’re immersed in it.
bumbling barry,
There is no data to suggest that the surface of the Earth was not molten four and a half billion years ago.
Where did I claim it was? Can you prove otherwise?
Willard wrote “The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago”, but he obviously believes that it may not mean what you think it means.
If you dont want to believe that the surface of the Earth was originally molten, you are free to do so.
If you dont want to believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you can believe that too.
You can even believe in a GHE, if you wish.
Go for it.
This isn’t about what I believe, it’s about you employing mutually contradictory terms in your argumentation.
Your reasoning self-implodes. No surprise, as it’s not really reasoning, it’s plain contrariness.
You’re a bag of wind.
bumbling barry,
There is no data to suggest that the surface of the Earth was not molten four and a half billion years ago.
Where did I claim it was? Can you prove otherwise?
Willard wrote “The planet was 800 C at the surface 4.5 billion years ago”, but he obviously believes that it may not mean what you think it means.
If you dont want to believe that the surface of the Earth was originally molten, you are free to do so.
If you dont want to believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you can believe that too.
You can even believe in a GHE, if you wish.
Go for it.
Mike Flynn,
I actually believe what Barry is telling you.
You’re a self-imploding buffoon.
Cheers.
Willard,
No doubt you noticed that Barry now accepts that the Earth was once completely molten. Not so now, is it?
It has cooled, you donkey!
Oh dear, I left a word out.
Tut, tut, my bad.
Mike Flynn,
You are all forgiven.
Cheers.
You are a comedian, wee willy. The paper author, Eric Swanson, is Swannie, the poster here who believes that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. I urged you to get into the Big Boys Club and you revert to the Little Girls Club.
The lower Bordo tries to put his guru’s critic, the worse it looks for Bordo’s guru.
Fine with me.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
“The lower Bordo tries to put his gurus critic, the worse it looks for Bordos guru.
Fine with me.”
Can you provide an English translation for non-GHE cultists?
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you would like to say?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tree ring proxies do not (or do) match with the temperature record for the same period. YMMV.
Well, who can prove they don’t?
Mike Flynn,
The Earth was once molten. Yet there are trees. What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-consensus/
Oh no, Whacky Wee Willy appeals to the authority of – Whacky Wee Willy!
Mike Flynn forgot to clock on the link once again.
Looks like he prefers to bray.
Oh noes!
Oh no, Whacky Wee Willy appeals to the authority of Whacky Wee Willy!
Mike Flynn *still* forgets to clock on the link.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 440.5 km/sec
density: 4.29 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Dec 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 114
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.34×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
Weekly Highlights and 27-Day Forecast
“…
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
11 December – 06 January 2024
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate to high levels on 11-12
Dec due to the flare potential of Regions 3511 and 3513. Solar
activity is expected to be low with a chance for R1-R2
(Minor-Moderate) flare events throughout the remainder of the
outlook period. …”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Well, it hasn’t been a low as I thought it could be. It’s low in sense we approaching the predicted peak of solar max, though if you imagine we going to have something like cycle 24 max with higher second peak. Or other ideas.
In terms of my guesses, I thought Nov sunspot number could be first time, crosses the curved line. It didn’t happen, and it it seems Dec might not cross the line, either.
But one could say I am finished with my long term guess regarding Nov. And it seems the prediction that we are in a Solar grand Min has been confirmed, rather than “disproven”.
Though one might say, it might be disproven within say next 6 months.
So rather a specific guess of Nov is when it crashes, I am going to guess, with next 6 month it’s going to cross the curved line and stay
below the curved line.
Apparently, some of the GHE cultists don’t accept what NASA says about the early Earth –
“Mechanisms for the removal of such a large amount of heat appear inadequate to prevent substantial melting, thus it is logical to assume that the earth was completely molten, i.e. a “magma ocean” at one time early in its history.”
Others are free to draw their own conclusions.
Dunno who the “cultists” are, but I accept NASA’s views here.
What I don’t accept is you rejecting scientific understanding on the basis that it is arrived at with incomplete or indirect evidence, and yet embrace this view about the early Earth when there is even less evidence for it.
The issue is your mutually contradictory stances. The attempt to distract from that with false accusations is your usual, transparent tactic.
“What I dont accept is you rejecting scientific understanding . . .”
Don’t accept it the. Doesn’t bother me at all. Why should I value your opinion?
The Earth has cooled. Nothing stopped it. No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
I made myself a peanut butter sammich. The greenhouse effect exists.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Earth has cooled, obviously.
It has been warmed up a bit, every time a big space rock hits it.
Though ones smaller that 10 km diameter, don’t do much- other exterminate a fair amount of life {which make nuclear war a rather minor thing in comparison}.
But the amount that Earth molten core has cooled in last billion year, doesn’t translate much in terms the Earth surface temperature- the Earth surface air temperature, is mostly due to the sunlight energy reaching Earth.
Most of heat from the Earth’s interior heats the ocean, where Earth’s crust is thin and a young surface. Which averages less than 200 million year and since it’s about 5 to 7 km thick, this more than 70% of Earth was molten and became solid rock. Or 70% of Earth surface went from about 6 km of molten rock to become solid cooled rocky surface in last 200 million years.
Nothing vaquely happenned in that scale and/or such relatively short period of time, in regards to continental land masses.
But if our molten planet mostly warms the ocean, that doesn’t mean there is not an effect from this in regards to global surface air temperature.
Or the only reason we are in an Ice Age is because we have a cold ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
If we had a lot heating of the ocean, thousands of years of significantly more heat loss of our molten planet, the ocean could warm by say 1 C. Or if instead it far more “active” it could warm the ocean as much as 1 C, within one century.
Or difference of plus or minus 1 C to average ocean temperature would have huge effect in terms increasing uniformity of Earth average surface temperature.
Hmm, I thinking about dinosaur extinction space rock which was around 10 km diameter or less.
Such a rock should/could have had an impact of global tectonic plate activity. Such effect would depend on what angle, what velocity, and what kind of rock it was. And we don’t know about any of these factors. Some guess it was at a shallow angle- so, say at around 45 degree angle, and some think it could have been comet.
But it seems one could model all the possibilities, and then have wide range of possible effects upon global tectonic plate activity.
And then compared it to field data about the guess estimates of past tectonic plate movement.
barry,, “cultists” are simply those that reject reality, favoring their false beliefs instead.
Cyclone Jasper is breaking through into the Gulf of Carpentaria.
https://i.ibb.co/Kw1L046/himawari9-ir-03-P-202312150630.gif
One of the site’s usual mooks just posted his most mendacious comment yet:
“EM energy from the Sun is strong enough to warm us at 93 million miles but I doubt if it is felt out at Pluto. Beyond the solar system it may reach a point where the EM energy it generate as light is insufficient to be detected.”
Question: can we, on Earth 1, detect electromagnetic signals from distances beyond Pluto, and even outside the solar system?
Answer: Yes!
https://youtu.be/bpSJwL3QJTs
A,
Yes, in theory, radiation from a candle on Earth can be detected at the end of the universe.
Just as the Earth’s orbit is affected by the gravitational effect of the mass of a candle at the end of the universe.
Quite unlike the effect of the “greenhouse effect”, which cannot be felt or detected anywhere at all.
What is your point (apart from a severe attack of nit-picking)?
Having nothing to say, the site’s other usual mook just had his worst brain-fart moment:
“…the Earth’s orbit is affected by the gravitational effect of the mass of a candle at the end of the universe.”
Let me count the ways:
1/ The “end of the universe” is not a defined location, and the scale of the universe is vast. A mass at such extreme distances would have negligible gravitational influence on Earth. Gravitational effects decrease rapidly with distance.
2/ Gravitational effects are primarily determined by the mass of an object and the distance between the objects. The mass of a single candle, regardless of its location, is minuscule compared to celestial bodies like planets, stars, or galaxies, and would have negligible impact on Earth’s orbit.
3/ Even if the candle were massive, its effect would be negligible compared to the gravitational influence of the Sun and other planets in our solar system. The gravitational forces between distant objects in the universe are generally too weak to have a noticeable impact on each other.
4/ The term “end of the universe” is not scientifically defined. The universe does not have a well-defined edge or endpoint as far as current scientific understanding goes.
5/ The statement misrepresents the scale of the universe, the nature of gravitational effects, and the significance of a small mass like a candle in influencing Earth’s orbit. Gravitational effects are most relevant and noticeable between objects that are close and massive, such as celestial bodies within our solar system.
A,
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation (one version) –
“any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.”
If you don’t believe the end of the universe is at the end of the universe, feel free to do so.
Play all the silly semantic games you like, nobody has ever found an exception to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. I guess that’s why it’s called the Law of Universal Gravitation.
As to your eminently ignorant statement “The statement misrepresents the scale of the universe, the nature of gravitational effects, and the significance of a small mass like a candle in influencing Earths orbit.”, I point out that there is no limit to the minimum input which may result in unpredictable chaotic behaviour in a deterministic dynamical system.
Whine and complain all you like – it happens to be true – unless you can demonstrate otherwise of course. But you can’t – so sad, too bad.
Carry on being irrelevant.
ExxonMobil Chairman & CEO Darren Woods’ message following COP28 acknowledgement by petro-states that the use of fossil fuels is causing harm and agreeing to “transition away from fossil fuel.”
https://youtu.be/YoRQx5hXYpo
Yes, large corporations can be brain-dead. They can also go WOKE.
Human organizations are affected by entropy.
What is the opposite of WOKE?
Should we describe fossil fuel companies, Republicans and other conservatives as ASLEEP?
After all, you spend your time with your heads down. You ignore problems and hope that they will go away.
Sorry Ent, but the opposite of WOKE is AWAKE.
WOKE is nothing more that perverting reality. Kind of like when you claim passenger jets fly backward.
“Woke” is a term that originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used to describe a heightened awareness of social and political issues, especially those related to racism and social injustice.
Being “woke” implies a consciousness and commitment to understanding and addressing societal inequalities.
There isn’t a specific antonym of “woke” in the same cultural context. However, some people use the term “unwoke” informally to describe someone who is perceived as less socially aware or not actively engaged in addressing social issues.
I sincerely doubt that ExxonMobil or Darren Woods fit the definition of woke.
“Woke is a term that originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used to describe a heightened awareness of social and political issues, especially those related to racism and social injustice.”
Yes, WOKE is nothing more than perverting reality. Those whiners that actually believe USA is racist focus on isolated incidences and avoid the reality of Black athletes, and entertainers, making millions. Ever checked Oprah’s bank statements? Was there not a Black President, duly elected?
If there’s wide-spread blatant racism, it’s against white males.
John Cleese again, again on the W-word:
https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1015886273482027014
“Woke is a term that originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE)….”
***
The word reveals the base ignorance of poor blacks who have trouble speaking proper English. The real word should be ‘awakened’, as in woke up, but we already have a word for that called ‘aware’. It is plainly bad English to claim ‘I am woke’.
‘Aware’, or ‘enlightened’ is the word they want but they need to use the vernacular of the environment in which many of them live. Why ignorant, politically-correct Whites feel the need to use the word is the question.
Cool story, Bordo.
Does it mean that the vernacular lacks the gravitational force environment to speak Waspy Canuckistanese?
You might like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_English
What is “proper English.” Gordon?
Given that new words are added regularly to the dictionaries, the language evolves. If enough people use ‘woke’, as annoying as that may be to you, it will end up in the dictionary, and be part of proper english.
Oh well.
Here’s some nobody used 20 y ago that come to mind when I think of you:
Truther
Anti-vaxxer
Mansplain
Facepalm
Deep state
Manspreading
Yep like the population problem caused by the industrial revolution while simultaneously virtually bringing an end to starvation.
Here’s how John Cleese defines the term:
Climate contrarians are the wokest among us!
actually wokeness is becoming offended. hence the snowflake. them and a bunch virtue signally exploiters of the less fortunate who lie and claim they are doing this for somebody else. eventually it comes out in the wash where they find themselves as the target.
Gill forgot to take his meds again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The temperature is going up its called orbital forced climate change phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Somehow I doubt it. We left the sweet spot of the current interglacial 5000 years ago. Orbital changes were cooling us until AGW kicked in around 1880 .
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Thank you, Entropic man, for a good illustration.
–
I am of the diametrally opposite opinion:
Orbital changes were warming us, they still do.
–
Milankovitch made a mistake. The cycle in our era is in warming trend. That is what we witness now, and not the AGW.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thats a good one EM where the iceage was only 4 degrees cooler than the Holocene optimum.
Another problem here is at the Holocene optimum the Arctic Ocean was ice free in the summer.
Its pretty cavalier to read tea leaves and declare the Holocene optimum 5000 years ago. Heck science is even trying to cast that into stone via declaring the Holocene has transitioned to the Anthropocene, assuring the future of nutcase rhetoric on that front.
EM carefully examined all the evidence
https://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html
And concluded that interglacials can only have one peak. Sheeesh!
GISS global average temperature for November is anomaly 1.44C.
That’s 1.64C above preindustrial.
It brings the year to date to 1.13C, 1.33C above preindustrial.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2023/12/giss-november-global-temperature-up-by.html
and what has the industrial revolution accomplished?
A 650% percent increase in population with a major decrease in starvation.
What we are dealing with here folks are those who want to exterminate the population increase back to preindustrial as they get aggravated in traffic jams. Or at least at a minimum put the deplorable rabble on buses. And you aren’t going to change that attitude among the elite unless you put them on the bus first.
The “elite” must wear hair shirts and walk, if want us to take them seriously.
No bicycles as they wouldn’t have been available without the industrial revolution.
But they can use donkeys or horses.
Donkeys and horses fart.
“It brings the year to date to 1.13C, 1.33C above preindustrial.”
In spite of the fact that the Australian BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”?
Any air temperature record claiming accuracy to better than 1 C is nonsensical (even with a properly calibrated thermometer. Averaging incorrect data to produce temperatures to 0.01 C is just fraud, plain and simple.
“Any air temperature record claiming accuracy to better than 1 C is nonsensical”
Swenson again expresses his personal incredulity of what science can do.
I will simply point out again, that his incredulity is not an argument.
And coming from a non-expert such as him, is quite worthless.
Nate claiming accuracy to one degree requires evidence. Do you have any here? Usually you don’t. I expect a blusterous response or no response.
Its Swenson making the claims without evidence.
Nate,
Would you accept that the thermometer enclosure is radiating IR, along with everything else in the universe?
One step at a time.
This paper estimates albedo error to be up to 10% or north of 10w/m2.
Makes it a bit difficult to estimate the .9watt/m2 energy imbalance as that is less than one eleventh of the albedo accuracy.
Maybe though they look at albedo, in truth, as having no temperature effect? Either way you are a gypsy driveway paving crew member.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/on-the-ground-measurements-overestimate-earths-albedo
“over the Greenland Ice Sheet” which is not the whole Earth.
“Our results reveal that in situ measurements overestimate albedo by up to 0.10 at the end of the melt season”
Gee how can anyone extrapolate that to the whole Earth average, with a straight face?
Gee, how can anybody claim a global surface temperature, when 70% of the surface is under water, and no measurements are taken of the surface?
You can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do, can you?
Cool the planet for a few billion years, then heat it up?
That sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it?
Nate says:
”over the Greenland Ice Sheet” which is not the whole Earth.
———————-
Nate continues to wing it as a gypsy driveway paver salesman.
Of course Nate doesn’t come forward with any evidence he is right he just questions the skeptics while trying to advance the imbalance accuracy.
Well here is another shot over your bow Nate.
talking about clouds
”The accuracy of the shortwave measurement is estimated to be 5 W/m2”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/11/2305
Considering that clouds make up about about 50% of the area, that works out to a global error for clouds alone to be more than 2 and half times that of the estimated imbalance.
The article also details major problems with estimating solar surface irradiance which is a necessary component of estimating surface albedo and how it is changing.
You wanna continue spewing what you call ”fake facts”?
“‘over the Greenland Ice Sheet’ which is not the whole Earth.’
–
Nate continues to wing it as a gypsy driveway paver salesman.
Of course Nate doesnt come forward with any evidence”
Really, you need evidence that the Greenland ice sheet at the end of the melt season is NOT THE WHOLE EARTH?
no nate i am talking about you winging it like a gypsy driveway paving scam salesman in claiming that the .9w/m2 radiant imbalance in the earth’s climate system has been measured.
“no nate i am talking about you winging it like a gypsy driveway paving scam salesman in claiming that the .9w/m2 radiant imbalance in the earths climate system has been measured.”
Swenson is the one claiming something without evidence, not me.
Neither of you offer evidence that it cannot be done.
As far as global albedo goes, the CERES satellites MEASURE the reflected solar from the Earth, which is a measure of its average albedo.
Nate says:
”no nate i am talking about you winging it like a gypsy driveway paving scam salesman in claiming that the .9w/m2 radiant imbalance in the earths climate system has been measured.”
Swenson is the one claiming something without evidence, not me.
Neither of you offer evidence that it cannot be done.
—————————
Nate nobody says it can’t be done. It just is the case its not being done and you got some papers stating just that by giving the uncertainty numbers for today’s monitoring.
If you know something I and Swenson don’t know as well as my sources I provided to you don’t know, by all means post it.
Until you do that it will remain as evidence that you are nothing but a salesman for some kind gypsy driveway paving fly-by-night scam.
The resolution of the measurement is better than 0.9 W/m^2.
That means they can track CHANGES in this measurement over time that are less than that. And they have done that for the last 20 y or so.
So they have seen that the energy imbalance has increased, and they can resolve that change to better than 0.9 W/m^2.
Perhaps this will go over your heads.
Nate you are just anti-science.
I gave you a link that shows the inaccuracy of measurements and you continue to declare like a guy standing on a soap box in Pershing Square that it is accurate.
Where is your source?
“the inaccuracy of measurements ”
Obviously you don’t understand the difference between accuracy and resolution. It is the latter that enables the satellite to do what it does.
No surprise.
Maybe this example will help. The government reports labor stats, such as the unemployment rate is 3.7 %.
Everyone knows this is not accurate, that the real rate is higher.
However we also know it’s resolution is good, so if it goes up to 4.4% that reflects a real increase in unemployment.
So it is useful for tracking change in the economy.
In the case of the CERES measurements they have used other measurements to calibrate theirs, to offset their ‘biases’ in the energy imbalance.
This is a one-time offset, then, because their measurement has high resolution, they can accurately resolve changes in the energy imbalance over time, to better than 0.9 W/m^2.
As can be seen here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Earth%27s_heating_rate_since_2005.jpg/435px-Earth%27s_heating_rate_since_2005.jpg
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
The energy imbalance as measured in the ocean and via satellite track each other very well, staying within 0.5 W/m^2 of each other.
GISS lost all credibility when they claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a probability of 38%.
COP 28: The radicals lose again
–David Wojick
As I pointed out several years ago, the climate alarmists have a civil war going on between radicals and moderates. Radical leader Greta Thunbergs famous How dare you was addressed to moderate COP negotiators, not skeptics.
In recent years, every COP had been dominated by an angry motion from the radicals, which was ultimately defeated in the final hours. Ironically these noisy motions tend actually to inhibit progress on the big green agenda, so I welcome them.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/15/cop-28-the-radicals-lose-again/
I don’t welcome them.
They are Drag Queen story hour.
COP 28: The radicals lose again
–David Wojick
As I pointed out several years ago, the climate alarmists have a civil war going on between radicals and moderates. Radical leader Greta Thunbergs famous How dare you was addressed to moderate COP negotiators, not skeptics.
In recent years, every COP had been dominated by an angry motion from the radicals, which was ultimately defeated in the final hours. Ironically these noisy motions tend actually to inhibit progress on the big green agenda, so I welcome them.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/15/cop-28-the-radicals-lose-again/
I don’t welcome them.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
David E. Wojick is a well-known and vocal climate change “contrarian”, with strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunct coal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_E._Wojick
“The Energy Information Administration estimates US coal production will decrease 9% on the year to 539.2 million st in 2023. ”
“In March 2023, China reached another monthly record of 417 Mt1, surpassing the previous record set in December 2022. In total, we expect China’s production to increase by 3.3% to 4 631 Mt for the full year 2023.”
China almost produces as much coal in a month as US does in a year.
I would guess If add in the amount of coal imported, about the same or more than US burns in a year vs China’s month.
But in China’s defensive, US and others, transfer there energy using industries to China, and called it, reducing global CO2 emission {when it wasn’t, rather due to US govt policies {and others}, global CO2 emission level were increased, rather reduced}.
https://climateball.net/but-china
Ooooooh! Another link to – Willard?
Mike Flynn,
I am not a website.
At least not yet.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You mean ‘formerly’-defunct coal industry. Many countries are waking up to the nonsense of climate propaganda and going back on coal.
–Alan Longhurst 1925-2023: oceanographer and climate skeptic
Posted on December 14, 2023 by curryja | 83 Comments
by Javier Vins–
https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/14/alan-longhurst-1925-2023-oceanographer-and-climate-skeptic/#more-30752
“JC note: I am very appreciative of this obituary written by Javier”
“However, the publishers of his oceanography books refused to publish a book that went against the prevailing climate dogma. This saddened Alan. If you have dedicated your life to science with honesty and integrity, it is not easy to deal with such rejection.”
The cult cannot stand reality.
Tell me you’re not an engineer without telling me you’re not an engineer…
[Gordon Robertson] “The delta symbol is never used in association with differentials. The only time you will see it used is when the variables x and y, where x is a function of y as is in y = f(x), is when delta represents a finite quantity that is measurable along the x or y axis. You will never see delta used as a differential which is so small as to be infinitesimal.”
Using common sense, any good engineer would have avoided writing such nonsense. I mean, seriously, you should at least have a solid background consisting of four semesters of calculus, two semesters of differential equations and linear algebra, and one semester of numerical methods before claiming to be an engineer. It’s just the basic math you have to know before you are allowed to call yourself an engineer.
A,
Changing the subject, how are you going with your real-world description of the GHE?
Or are you just trolling for effect?
Arkady Ivanovich says:
I mean, seriously, you should at least have a solid background consisting of four semesters of calculus, two semesters of differential equations and linear algebra, and one semester of numerical methods before claiming to be an engineer. Its just the basic math you have to know before you are allowed to call yourself an engineer.
————————
Actually you need a lot more in California.
https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/applying_for_ce.shtml#:~:text=NEW%20APPLICANTS&text=Once%20you%20have%20passed%20the,Professional%20Engineer%20(PE)%20Application%20.
An ongoing debate centers around requiring licensure for at least upper division and above Professors.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/december-2014/survey-pe-license-crucial-academia-not-always-encouraged
”Eighty-three percent of survey takers strongly agreed or agreed that those faculty should be licensed. The same percentage also believe in licensure for engineering deans. ”If all youve ever done is teach engineering, you lack a critical part of what students need to learn,” says Deni Adkins, P.E., engineering technician instructor at Northeast Alabama Community College. ”You can only duplicate what you are.” ”
bill…I don’t understand what they are getting at. All our math was taught by professors from the Faculty of Mathematics. I don’t know why an engineering prof would be teaching math classes. Having said that, they are first class problem solving experts.
In reply to Ark’s comment, by the end of 2nd year engineering, which is third year university, I had studied a full course in differential calculus to a level of triple integrals and a full year of differential equation theory. We studied a semester of linear algebra followed by a semester of vector calculus. I have no idea why Ark thinks linear algebra, aka mystery math, is a two semester course. Everything you need to know about matrix algebra, the basis of linear algebra, including matrices applied to vector calculus, can be learned in a year.
I am not clear on the usefulness of this kind of training since within 10 years, about 90% of it is forgotten. I guess it’s a familiarity thing, once you have been exposed to it, you can always review what needs to be reviewed.
We also took a semester of complex number theory since complex numbers apply particularly to electrical engineering. We also had a full year of probability and statistics theory, which was taught by a young math prof who could write on the blackboard with chalk as fast as he could talk. Quite remarkable.
If you consider computer science as math, we took a year of computer science as well. Logic is a big part of digital electronics theory and features like Karnaugh maps used to manipulate truth tables has to be considered math as well. Binary math (base 2), base 16 math (hexadecimal), and the conversion between both and decimal (base 10) is an art in itself.
Your pseudologia fantastica is a bottomless pit.
That’s your opinion, is it?
Well done!
Gordon Robertson says:
”billI dont understand what they are getting at. All our math was taught by professors from the Faculty of Mathematics. I dont know why an engineering prof would be teaching math classes. Having said that, they are first class problem solving experts.”
I am sure thats not what I said and I hope my sentence structure didn’t imply that.
What I posted was a survey of where 95% of the respondents were licensed professional engineers, 51% held PhDs, and 48% were in some engineering department in an engineering degree program.
The point is one I have been making. Professional licensure almost always in the professions require experience, exams, and degrees (though some will substitute longer periods of experience in lieu of a degree. . .not sure about that for engineers anywhere though).
I gave a quote by an engineering professor for why experience is needed. It has been unfortunate that in academia they forego that so much for the people they hire as professors. Thats why you get so many people instructing children who are selling stuff like gypsy driveway pavers sell stuff that licensed people would lose their license for if not also going to jail.
bill…sorry for confusion. My comment was not aimed at what you said but aimd at the article’s notion that engineering profs are teaching math.
No problem I was just confused about what you were referring to.
ark…why do you continue to babble about higher math when you obviously have no idea what it is based on? Only an ijit would try to compare delta, a finite change of a parameter, to a differential, an infinitesimal change.
dy/dt = infinitesimal
delta = finite change.
As delta -> 0 you approach the differential.
If you ever get past elementary school math, you might eventually learn that. I won’t hold my breath.
Your antisocial behavior is off-putting, and low-class.
Ah, the self appointed arbiter opines again.
Does anybody value his opinion?
The world wonders.
Don’t we witness the seasonal warming and cooling periods?
Aren’t they orbitally forced yearly cyclical phenomena?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
Now explain the mechanism by which a decrease in the amount of energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere warms the planet.
be more specific since we know the planet is cooling. but on second thought isn’t it that your daddy’s theory is cooling causes warming?
According to Willard, the result of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Even Willard agrees that the Earth is cooling, albeit slowly.
GHE cultists are not necessarily unintelligent, just confused and out of touch with reality.
Inculcated and too lazy to question authority.
Without his meds, Gill questions everything, including Mike Flynn’s authority:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Gill obviously has daddy issues.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You have the wrong impressing of ‘slower cooling’.
Suppose I have two boxes with identical heaters that I turn on for 12 hours and then off for 12 hours. The first box is insulated; the second is not.
The first box will have ‘slower cooling’ once the heaters are turned off. This does NOT mean that either or both boxes are getting cooler month after month. It just means the insulation causes slower cooling (and higher overall average temperatures).
So when we say “GHGs cause slower cooling” this is what you should use as an analogy. After the sun warms the planet during the day, the GHGs cause SLOWER COOLING at night. (And no. I am not saying that GHGs are actual “insulation”. It is just an analogy.)
Yes. The “earth is cooling” — it cools every night. And warms up the next day.
You are confusing “earth is cooling each night” with “earth is cooling day over day”.
Tim,
“So when we say “GHGs cause slower cooling” this is what you should use as an analogy. After the sun warms the planet during the day, the GHGs cause SLOWER COOLING at night. (And no. I am not saying that GHGs are actual “insulation”. It is just an analogy.)
Well gee, Tim.
No description of the GHE, just an acknowledgment that GHGs are not insulation, but are actually insulation, causing the surface at night to cool more slowly. Yes, Tim, cooling results in lower temperatures – whether slow or fast.
Actually, Raymond Pierrehumbert (who may or may not be smarter than you), said that “CO2 is just planetary insulation”. You disagree, Good for you!
The Earth is cooling – losing energy at the rate of 44TW or so.
You wrote –
“You are confusing “earth is cooling each night” with “earth is cooling day over day.” I am unaware of saying “the Esrth is cooling day over day”, so maybe you just made that up, hoping people would think I said it. No matter, the Earth is losing energy at the rate of about 44TW, day and night. This is called “cooling”.
Maybe you are confusing the effect of sunlight with some mythical “GHE”?
Tim Folkerts says:
The first box will have slower cooling once the heaters are turned off. This does NOT mean that either or both boxes are getting cooler month after month. It just means the insulation causes slower cooling (and higher overall average temperatures).
———————
Well I should be happy that you guys are no longer supporting the 3rd grader radiation model. Thats some real progress.
Your next assignment should you choose to take it is to provide the evidence that you can insulate something with a gas and detail the physics of how that works, when it works, and what the variables are.
For example your coffee pot is warmer when the thermometer is higher outside. But its not warmer when the IR meter pointed at the sky says its colder or the same than the air at the surface.
On a typical night the thermometer near the surface might say 15C. If your IR meter says the sky is 16C then you can expect both the coffee and the near surface atmosphere to get warmer. If its less than 15C have no such expectations.
Tim,
“Suppose I have two boxes with identical heaters that I turn on for 12 hours and then off for 12 hours. The first box is insulated; the second is not.”
OK. Your heaters consist of hollow tubes with 288 K water circulating. Plenty hot enough to boil anything like liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, and so on. The environment is 288 K.
Insulate away. The heaters do not increase their temperature at all. Turn them off, and they both remain at the same temperature.
Now you are going to claim that you have suddenly discovered your heaters have a temperature of 500 K. OK, but now they are limited to say an area of 1 m2, and the power supply is 3500 W maximum. Insulate away. Once again, no increase in temperature whilst on, and both cool when off, in a 288 K environment.
You see, Tim, that imaginary scenarios can perform any illusion you like. Just leave some vital data out, and avoid reality at all costs!
In any case, cooling is cooling. What the planet has done over the past four and a half billion years, and the surface does every night. No GHE.
“But its not warmer when the IR meter pointed at the sky says its colder or the same than the air at the surface.”
A car parked under a carport can be frost free when a car in the open is covered with frost. Same air temperature. The different is IR radiation. One gets “warm IR” from the carport roof, the other gets “cold IR” form the sky.
Yes, even just a difference in IR in the surroundings makes a difference in cooling.
Tim,
You wrote –
“A car parked under a carport can be frost free when a car in the open is covered with frost. Same air temperature. The different is IR radiation. The different is IR radiation. One gets “warm IR” from the carport roof, the other gets “cold IR” form the sky.”
You are away with the fairies.
There is no “cold IR”. No “cold rays” from outer space, the sky, or anywhere else!
Just simple physics. Prof John Tyndall explained the phenomenon over 150 years ago, without knowing wave theory or quantum theory! Just observation, thinking, and experiment to see if his speculation was correct.
“OK. Your heaters consist of hollow tubes …”
No. My heaters consist of electric heating elements with constant POWER, not water with constant TEMPERATURE. Try again.
And even with your attempted hijack, the insulated box will warm faster and cool slower. It will have a higher average temperature because of ‘slower cooling’.
“Now you are going to claim …”
Nope. But now you are going to throw out more strawmen.
Three swings. Three misses. I think you just struck out.
“There is no cold IR.”
There is cold water. There is warm water.
There is cold air. There is warm air.
And there is cold IR and warm. Look for the peak in the spectrum; use Wein’s Law; that is the temperature of the IR.
“I am not saying that GHGs are actual insulation.”
These guys naively think insulation is only insulation if it is a product you can buy at the store to insulate your house.
That is silly.
I would say that the atmosphere with GHGs is insulation, based on its ability to insulate the Earth.
Nate, Earth WITHOUT GHGs would be even warmer.
“provide the evidence that you can insulate something with a gas and detail the physics of how that works”
Sure. Double-paned windows with a gas layer in between are better insulators than a single pane of glass.
I know you are familiar with these, Bill.
insulation is mostly used for preventing heat transfer by conduction. however there is a use for reflective barriers. but reflective barriers cannot list an r-value unless incorporated into a product system for which the r-value has been verified by testing.
so it is illegal to sell reflection barriers by themselves as insulation unless the r-value has been verified not by nate’s imagination but by actual testing ala a test like this.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
it was made illegal in the 1970’s during the energy crisis when charlatans were running around like gypsy driveway pavers conning money out of homeowners selling tinfoil radiant barriers that didn’t do a thing to reduce overwhelming energy cost increases of the times. today we have government sponsored gypsy driveway pavers selling what the building industry is barred from doing.
Bill.
“Double-paned windows with a gas layer in between are better insulators than a single pane of glass.”
is the evidence that a gas layer can insulate, that you requested.
“Nate, Earth WITHOUT GHGs would be even warmer.”
Evidence?
Nah, who am I kidding?
Everyone understands that you just make up nonsense that can’t ever be supported.
If you had ever built a working convective system to meet such objectives you wouldn’t be ignorant about it Nate. All it is is a scientific technological solution that has been around since the time of the Egyptian Pharaohs. But I guess your Professors sold you on the idea that science didn’t start until Western Civilization came on the scene.
Glacial cycles are driven by the amount of heat reaching high Northern latitudes, which varies with orbital eccentricity and the relative timing of apoastron and the precession of the equinoxes.
During an interglacial enough heat arrives to melt Winter snow above 50N latitude during each Summer.
The other 90% of the time snow persists until the end of each Summer and the next Winter’s snow falls on top of last year’s.
Over years the snow builds up into extensive ice sheets which can extend as far as New York or London.
Incidentally a change in global average of 4C is sufficient to make the difference between ice sheets in Greenland and ice sheets in England.
“we know the planet is cooling. ”
We do not. Every dataset, including UAH, shows that the slow cooling trend since 3000BC has been overridden by rapid warming since 1880.
EM,
From one peer-reviewed paper, published by the reputable scientific publisher Elsevier –
“The present rate of cooling is estimated to be about 4.6 10−8 deg y−1 for the average mantle temperature, assumed to be 2500 K, but this very slow cooling rate represents a loss of residual mantle heat of 7 10^12 W, about 30% of the total mantle-derived heat flux.”
The current figures for the energy imbalance are that about 44TW are being lost by the planet.
The cooling is slow, but inexorable. As Willard said of the GHE output “not cooling, slower cooling”. Very slow indeed.
How do you classify a re-warming from the Little Ice Age as warming?
Eman believes we have had satellites recording LT temps since 3000BC. Obviously Eman believe everything his daddy tells him. But sometimes obviously he doesn’t listen very well.
ent…”Now explain the mechanism by which a decrease in the amount of energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere warms the planet”.
***
Pretty simple. Due to the tilt of the Earth, as Christos point out, at certain parts of the orbit, the Northern Hemisphere cools while the rest warms. Since the rest has a lot more ocean, that warming is retained more easily.
Thank you, Gordon.
Milankovitch made a mistake, because in his time he witnessed a gradual cooling.
Ice has specific heat 0,5 cal/(gr*oC)
Water has 1 cal/(gr*oC)
Thus, at the period of sea ice intense melting, the average air temperature dropped, the land glaciers started grow – and planet experienced it as the LIA (Little Ice Age).
That period is over now.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Don’t mess with Milankovitch or Revelle. They are their “go to” guys.
Why not? Cuz you guys have never offer science answers for them.
Oh well!
Many others made mistakes too.
–
S-B didn’t check their equation on the low and on terrestrial temperatures.
–
No other scientist did a check on S-B equation, which is also a mistake.
–
Scientists, who say atmospheric (~400 ppm) CO2 warms earth’s surface do a huge mistake too.
–
Another mistake is the earth’s surface specular reflection is neglected.
–
The ignorance of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Also, the EM radiation, what is not reflected from a surface, it doesn’t get absorbed in the surface (and warm it). It gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy.
Only a small portion of it gets absorbed in inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“S-B didnt check their equation on the low and on terrestrial temperatures.
No other scientist did a check on S-B equation, which is also a mistake.”
Of course others did.
Stop making up your own fake facts!
Nate,
You demanded “Stop making up your own fake facts!”
Why should he? What is a fake fact, anyway?
Is it in fact, a non-factual fact? That seems a bit odd. Rather like a GHE cultist saying that slow cooling is really heating.
Do you have the faintest notion of how dim you look?
Carry on.
Christos…good point re Milankovitch. His theory re orbital variations may hold some merit since orbital planes tend to vary greatly in orientation. The lunar orbital plane rotates around an axis every 7 years and I imagine the Earth’s orbital plane does the same.
Like
One thing for sure a fake fact to Nate is whatever he wants to be fake. Thats because he has no idea about what he is talking about because he so seldom provides any facts about what he does believe.
When living in a glass house one should not throw stones.
Bill is having a meltdown, and looking for someone to blame for his many failed arguments.
Earlier, barry wrote –
“An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE”
There are a couple of problems here.
First, barry makes sure that the Earth is not mentioned, so he, like Willis Eschenbach, can whine furiously that he never mentioned the Earth, if somebody criticises his description, and attempts to relate it to reality.
Second, an object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed, does not necessarily become warmer. That’s not basic thermodynamics, that’s insanity. For example, an object receiving continual energy from a block of ice can have its rate of energy loss reduced all you like, but it won’t become any warmer. It can never get any hotter than the temperature of its heat source. That’s basic thermodynamics.
Now all of this “description” is sufficiently vague that its author can never be validly accused of having said anything specific at all!
The reader is supposed to assume all sorts of things, and accept the misdirection offered by the fraudster or illusionist as fact.
If barry meant to specify the Earth, he would have done so, but he realised that would entail specifying his “continual energy” (the suckers are supposed to think he meant the Sun, of course), and his illusion would quickly unravel
Let us see if barry has the backbone to specify the Earth, the Sun, etc., in his “description”, and still maintain his GHE illusion.
The silliness (or outright fraud) of the GHE cultists is exposed by the phenomenon of nighttime, where the surface supposedly receives continual energy from “back radiation” of some 333 W/m2, but cools anyway.
Maybe barry really meant to say that the surface heats when the sun shines, cools when it doesn’t, and during the night, loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat, thus explaining why the Earth has cooled since the surface was molten.
He’s either a fool, and knows nothing, or a fraud, knowingly peddling misinformation.
Others will decide for themselves, I suppose.
Mike Flynn:
1. The Earth is a celestial object.
2. Necessity has nothing to do with empirical sciences.
3. Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…from Barry…”An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics”.
***
It may be basic thermodynamics to certain dyed-in-the-wool thermodynamics types but it contradicts quantum theory. Electrons in atomic orbitals receive the radiation and react to the frequency, not the amount. In that sense, electrons should be self-regulating in that no matter how much radiation you feed to them they will only rise to a certain level of orbital energy. Continuing the same amount of radiation does not translate to ever-increasing temperatures, as Pierrehumbert preaches.
If you apply a torch to a piece of metal, it might glow red, but keeping the torch applied to it does not increase its temperature beyond the temperature representing red. If you stifle heat dissipation, the metal will warm a bit but it won’t melt. Pierrehumbert think the temperature of Earth would rise to 800,000C if you stifle heat dissipation.
However, you can dramatically increase the temperature of a flame by adding forced air that increases the oxygen content of the flame.
Swenson
We are discussing climate, specifically the interaction between surface temperatures and glacial cycles.
Nobody here will disagree that the Earth’s mantle is cooling slowly, and has been since Earth formed, but it is not relevant to this topic.
EM,
Well, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and one would expect that “glacial” conditions relate to lower temperatures. Not a lot of glaciation above the temperature of frozen water.
You claim the discussion is about surface temperatures, but you appear to be slyly redefining surface temperature to be “air” temperature, which is not actually measured anyway.
All a bit higgledy-piggledy. Maybe you are a wee bit confused. As the Earth cools, and liquid water becomes cold enough to freeze, then the chaotic action of the atmosphere (known as “weather”) may result in glaciers forming, advancing, and retreating.
Maybe you could be a little more specific, as I surmise you may be intending to insert some GHE nonsense in one form or another.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, and confirm you have no interest in discussing the role of the mythical GHE in anything in particular.
Gigantic Wave in Pacific Ocean Was Most Extreme ‘Rogue Wave’ on Record
Nature
11 December 2023
By Carly Cassella
https://www.sciencealert.com/gigantic-wave-in-pacific-ocean-was-most-extreme-rogue-wave-on-record
“In November of 2020, a freak wave came out of the blue, lifting a lonesome buoy off the coast of British Columbia 17.6 meters high (58 feet).
The four-story wall of water was finally confirmed in February 2022 as the most extreme rogue wave ever recorded at the time.”
“Scientists define a rogue wave as any wave more than twice the height of the waves surrounding it. The Draupner wave, for instance, was 25.6 meters tall, while its neighbors were only 12 meters tall.
In comparison, the Ucluelet wave was nearly three times the size of its peers.”
So wasn’t a big wave, rather biggest compared to the waves around it.
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Pfffft! A mere bagatelle!
From SurferToday –
“The biggest wave ever recorded measured 1,720 feet”
Recorded. Not modelled.
That’s a bit of humour. The average wave off Ucluelet is about 5 feet.
norman…”You have never attempted to take two cans and move one in an orbital path keeping the same side of the orbiting can facing the center can. You will find you have to rotate the orbiting can in order to keep it facing the center can”.
***
Norman, I have tried to explain to you that the Moon has no one twisting it to keep the same face pointed at Earth. The reason you must turn a can to keep it facing the centre of an orbit is that the can lacks the gravitational force environment and natural linear momentum of the Moon wherein it is orbiting a centre with a gravitational field.
The only reasons the Moon remains in orbit are the zero resistance it faces in its orbit, it’s perfect linear velocity for an orbit, and it’s perfect momentum for an orbit. In essence, the Moon is always moving in a straight line and it has no means of turning in an orbit. It relies on a simple principle where Earth’s gravitational field deflects it just enough, in a continual manner, to form a curved path around the planet.
That’s where it’s momentum comes in. Momentum is a property of a moving body that keeps it moving as long as there are no opposing forces to slow it down. If a mass is at rest, and sufficient force is applied, the body will accelerate while offering a resistance to motion due to its inertia. As the body accelerates it has a momentum proportional to its mass times it’s instantaneous velocity. If the force is removed, the momentum will keep the body moving at a constant velocity and if the mass experiences no opposing forces, the momentum will maintain the velocity forever.
That’s what is happening with the Moon. Your can has none of that going for it. However, if you want to use it to demonstrate lunar motion, you need to replicate lunar momentum and the effect of Earth’s gravity by turning the can.
If you really want to replicate the motion better, attach the can to a spoke attached to a hub, like a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, or a ball on a string. Then you won’t have to turn the can at all. Furthermore, the can won’t be be able to rotate about a local axis since it is tied to the spoke.
What imparts to the Moon the force that the spoke produces?
RLH, you have yet to understand the model is of “orbital motion without spin”. It is NOT a model of Moon’s exact orbital motion. It only demonstrates that orbiting, without spin, means only one side will face the inside of the orbit.
I bet you will make this same mistake again.
” It is NOT a model of Moons exact orbital motion. “
I’ll let Feynman handle this one:
“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.”
You admit your model does not give exact results — it doesn’t agree with observed libration. Ours does.
Correct Folkerts, the ball-on-a-string Is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without spin”.
(Every time I have to explain that to idi0ts just shows what idi0ts they are.)
BTW Folkerts, you don’t have a model of “orbital motion without spin” that works, just like you don’t have a description/definition of the GHE that works.
In two posts we have gone from ‘the angular momentum is zero’ to ‘the angular momentum is meaningless’. It can’t be both. If angular momentum is meaningless, why did you even bring it up?
“If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would move away in a straight line, with no spin.”
Wrong. it would move off in a straight line, still spinning once per month (27.3 days) with respect to the stars.
“you dont have a model of orbital motion without spin that works”
Well, you just admitted that yours doesn’t work accurately, so you are not one to complain.
I (and EVERY SINGLE OTHER PHYSICIST) do have a simple model of orbital motion that works BETTER than yours. The center of mass follows an ellipse. Every point on the object maintains the same orientation with respect to the stars.
If you can only understand physical models, then the ‘ball’ is on a frictionless ‘pole’ and the pole moves in an ellipse. We can include a model of tidal interactions by adding a ₛₘₐₗₗ amount of friction that will synchronize the rotation with the orbital period.
Folkerts, throwing crap like that against the wall is nothing more than being a frustrated child.
Since you have NOTHING just concede, like an adult. Then, maybe you can learn.
Tim,
Newton provides an example of an orbiting body with one face continuously presented to the Earth.
You can look up “Newton’s cannonball”, if you fell like it.
The cannonball is not rotating around an internal axis, as it has not been subjected to any torque when fired. The only force acting upon it is the force of gravity, always perpendicular to its direction of travel.
As is the case with the Moon. As it turns out, the Moon’s mass distribution is not uniform, and any initial rotation the Moon may have had, has slowed and halted – just like a freely rotating unbalanced wheel will eventually stop – with its “heaviest” part closest to the Earth. When you look at the Moon directly overhead, it is falling directly towards you! Be afraid, be very afraid!
Luckily, by the time the Moon has fallen about a millimeter and a quarter towards you (about one second), it has moved away from the Earth in a straight line, and is now one and a quarter millimeters further away from the Earth (the Earth being roundish, it “falls away” from the Moon, which travels in a straight line, unless subjected to an external force. Newton’s First Law).
Actually, the Moon is travelling at such a speed that it actually goes a little further each second than is necessary to counteract its fall, and is slowly receding from the Earth – according to recent measurements, anyway.
So the Moon seems to float in the sky, as it continuously falls towards the Earth – and moves away! Just one force – gravity.
You did imply that you were a physicist? Just not a very knowledgeable one, by the look of it.
If you want to throw in more irrelevant and pointless analogies, please be my guest. You don’t really need my help to appear detached from reality.
“with one face continuously presented to the Earth.
You can look up Newtons cannonball, if you fell like it.”
Nope. Why do you guys keep fantasizing that the cannonball in this graphic is keeping the same face to Earth?
It is a uniform sphere with no distinguishing marks!
“It is NOT a model of Moon’s exact orbital motion”
Agreed.
Finally!
I hope you won’t have to be reminded again.
We’ll see….
richard…obviously the hub to which the spoke is attached would have to be powered to rotate it, hence the spoke and the Moon. However, that’s neither here nor there. The point is to demonstrate that a sphere, like the Moon, driven by a spoke attached to a hub, always keeps the same face pointed at the hub.
The motion of that driven sphere would model the motion of the real Moon, unlike Norman’s cans, which need to be adjusted to keep the same face pointed inwardly.
If you note the motion of the sphere on a spoke, or a ball on a string, with the same face always pointing inwardly, how can a body rotating about a local axis possibly have the same motion?
So you agree that the spoke/hub combination provides a force.
right. and gravity is a force also. dremts video has spokes etc.
even the water in a spinning bowl will bring the rubber duckies up to speed its just very tenuous with liquid spokes such that obviously a spinner will claim that the ducky laying against the rim of the bowl is spinning on its owm center of mass rather than around the axis that the bowl is spinning on.
i as said this issue is about folk who can add and subtract and see any equation with a plus or minus sign as two motions instead of one simple motion.
“the can lacks the gravitational force environment and natural linear momentum of the Moon wherein it is orbiting a centre with a gravitational field.”
Gordon, you talk truth about linear momentum, but neglect to mention that the Moon similarly has ANGULAR momentum.
Its angular momentum keeps it spinning at a constant rate, even its its orbital rate slows down and speeds up.
Moon does NOT have angular momentum.
Calculate the moon’s angular momentum. Show your work.
You can calculate the mvr for a snail moving past you. But, it is meaningless.
It’s only math. It has no physical meaning. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would move away in a straight line, with no spin. It has NO angular momentum.
Unlike a sportsman who performs a weight toss where a spin IS imparted to the ball/wire.
Hmm, in terms of stars, the Moon is little. Earth/Sun L-2 has or could have less. Jupiter L-2 might be better.
I should google, James Webb angular momentum:
“Because JWST employs a large sunshade and is passively cooled (rather than actively’cooled by evaporation of
cryogen), its lifetime is limited by propellant, not cryogen. JWST will use propellant for three purposes: to fire mid-
course corrections to arrive at L2; to dump angular momentum from the reaction wheels (which are torqued by net solar
radiation pressure); and to keep station in orbit around L2. The propellant has been sized for ten years of operations.
JWST’will make station-keeping maneuvers at a nominal frequency of21 days, and dump angular momentum as needed.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120014229/downloads/20120014229.pdf
That didn’t answer my question but…
“Reaction wheels
To acquire a target, James Webb (and other space telescopes) uses a number of reaction wheels, one for each “axis”. At least three are needed, but James Webb has six; more allows for easier control, but are also heavier. These wheels rotate constantly, thus storing a large amount of angular momentum to keep the telescope steady. Changing the angular speed of one of the action wheels causes Webb to change its direction along that wheel’s axis.
Edit thanks to @KarlKastor: While James Webb observes, the photon pressure of the Sun’s light exerts a torque on the telescope. To maintain its position, this is counteracted by adjusting the spin of the reaction wheels. This causes angular momentum to build up, which must occasionally be dumped by firings Webb’s thrusters once per week or so (JWST Momentum Management).”
So, solar pressure is “larger issue”- so Jupiter distance better, but it’s got longer orbit- in terms of wait time in an orbital schedule management of targets.
nate…my argument is that a freely-moving body like the Moon cannot have an angular momentum. Newton claimed the Moon has only linear motion and linear motion cannot have an angular component. Only a mass attached to a lever arm attached to a hub, and driven by the lever arm, can have angular momentum.
A freely moving mass by itself cannot have angular momentum since such a mass has no force acting to cause such a motion. A freely moving body can have only linear velocity/momentum. If the mass moves through an attractive field, the field can bend the linear motion into an arc but is that angular momentum? I don’t think it is.
natemy argument is that a freely-moving body like the Moon cannot have an angular momentum. Newton claimed the Moon has only linear motion and linear motion cannot have an angular component.”
Angular momentum is well-defined mathematically.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html
There is no OTHER way to find it. It makes no sense to say it isn’t what the math says it is.
Orbital Angular momentum for a mass is L = p x r, where p is linear momentum mv, and r is radius from the center of the orbit.
When p and and r are perpendicular this equation gives L = mvr.
In fact, Newton’s orbits have constant orbital angular momentum.
This doesnt include the additional angular momentum from the body’s rotation (spin) which will add to the Moon’s total.
nate starts mentally bifurcating the angular momentum of the moon because he learned to add and subtract in the 3rd grade and to him thats a hammer he can use on any equation that has a plus or minus sign in it.
Whenever Bill mentions angular momentum, what follows is guaranteed to be a sh*t-show.
Correction: L = rxp.
Nate says:
”When p and and r are perpendicular this equation gives L = mvr.”
Nate you need a line and a point on it to be perpendicular and p nor mv is either a line or a point. And unless there is connection you could be skating by every skater in the world lined up around you and you would be claiming angular momentum around every one them, many simultaneously. You have lost your mind.
Gill’s car can’t crash into another one perpendicularly, for it is neither a line nor a point.
Gill is a genius.
figured willard would buy into the nonsense of an auto traveling the a line of indeterminate length means according to Nate and now Willard believing Nate that the auto has angular momentum around every object in the universe. What better way to avoid noting that the moon is rotating around the earth, that the earth moon system is rotating around the sun, and the solar system is rotating around the galaxy and as such the straight line that Nate envisioned isn’t at all straight. Seems he just missed some of the information his professors taught him via a timely brain fart.
I love it when Gordo throws up a pile of bad physics, displaying his utter ignorance of the subject. In just this one reply, he writes:
That is utter rubbish, as no “force” (i.e., torque) is required to maintain a bodies angular momentum. Gordo then wrote:
Just as no applied force is required to maintain linear momentum, no external torque is required to maintain the angular momentum of a free body.
This whole thread reveals, yet again, that Gordo doesn’t get it. He just keeps going down the same old rabbit hole, never noticing that others are laughing at him.
swanson completely has the gist of gordon’s statement fly about 50,000 feet over his head. the discussion is about an orbiting body moving through space as the motl.
Clint is getting weirder and weirder.
He denies the Moon has angular momentum.
He says “Its only math. It has no physical meaning.”
But how else does he suggest we can find its angular momentum, other than with math?
Gordon Robertson
Will you then at least admit it is possible the moon is rotating once on its own axis to keep the same side continuously facing the Earth? You cannot move the can in an orbital path without rotating to keep the same side facing the center can. At least you should consider it is possible you are wrong and your logic is incorrect. You can take the same can and not rotate it at all and move it around the center can and you will see the center can sees all sides of the “orbiting” can.
You do not need to have the “twisting” motion on the moon to have it rotate once per orbit. It will do that on its own. Tidal locking is real, you need to investigate the theory. Read up on it, how it works and why it is real. Many moons are tidally locked in our solar system.
This video simplifies the concept and demonstrates how it works. I suggest you watch it to learn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivCstgXlDo
If you want much more difficult material you can wade through this.
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/CeMec/0024//0000185.000.html
Norman, you don’t get to pontificate just because you are in therapy.
You need some science.
Your cult’s “tidal locking” is easily debunked.
Your cult has no model of “orbital motion without spin” that can hold. up.
Norman,
Fact is enough for me. The Moon presents one face to the Earth – the side falling towards the Earth continuously.
You don’t like Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, don’t accept it!
Neither Newton, the Moon, or I care about your “logic”.
Just accept reality – or not, as you wish.
norman…”Will you then at least admit it is possible the moon is rotating once on its own axis to keep the same side continuously facing the Earth?”
***
I will consider the possibility if you explain scientifically how synchronous rotation works. I would need a step by step explanation with all forces involved.
Even NASA could not explain it. I wrote to them presenting the same argument I offer here and they did not refute it. All they said was that NASA is observing lunar rotation from the stars. That seemed to be an admission that viewed from Earth, the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. When I replied that a body that is not rotating about a local axis in one frame of rference is not rotating about such an axis in any frame of reference, I received no reply.
Norman, the human mind is prone to illusion. Perhaps the foremost illusion is that the Sun rise in the East and moves across the sky to set in the West. We know that is an illusion created by the relative motion of the Earth rotating West to East. I think synchronous rotation is another illusion and the claim of the reality has never been explained. It is alleged and agreed to by consensus, but never proved.
All you need to visualize lunar motion without rotation is to consider the Moon moving along a linear path, say the Y-axis from below the x-axis, while keeping the same side point toward the negative x-side. Now slowly bend it with some external force centred at say x = -5, y = 0 and the Moon will continue as before, without spinning, but along a curved path. If the curve is bent into a circle, the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the force centre without spinning at all.
Newton knew that. He stated that the Moon moves with a linear motion while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. I have just described that motion.
Gordon Robertson
I gave you two links to look at. One the simplified version that explains it. The other complex math you should wade through. The combination of links should satisfy your request.
Norman,
Fact is enough for me. The Moon presents one face to the Earth the side falling towards the Earth continuously.
You dont like Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, don’t accept it!
Neither Newton, the Moon, or I care about your “logic”. .
Just accept reality or not, as you wish.
Norman,
You wrote –
“The other complex math you should wade through.”
Just to make him waste his time for nothing, presumably?
You should read and understand what you link to – which you obviously haven’t done in this case!
If you disagree, you need to explain why, support your disagreement with facts, or others will take you for the same knuckleheaded cultist as I do.
You really have no clue, do you?
Norman, your first link was done by an immature jerk, obviously for uneducated children.
The second link had NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT spinning.
First you wrote:
“…the Earth’s orbit is affected by the gravitational effect of the mass of a candle at the end of the universe.”
And then you doubled down with:
“Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation (one version) –
‘any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.’
…
Whine and complain all you like – it happens to be true – unless you can demonstrate otherwise of course. But you can-t – so sad, too bad.”
Alrighty then…
For the record, the only version of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation that matters is this:
F=G*m1*m2/r^2,
Where:
F= gravitational force between two objects,
G= 0.00000000006674 Nm^2/Kg^2,
m1= Earth’s mass= 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg,
m2= mass of a candle= 0.2 Kg,
r= distance m1 to m2= 879,873,000,000,000,000,000,000 m.
Now, put these numbers in your calculator for a measure of how irrelevant your premise is.
A,
I wrote –
“Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation (one version)
“any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.”
Whine and complain all you like it happens to be true unless you can demonstrate otherwise of course. But you can’t so sad, too bad.”
You the proceeded to accept what I said as being factual, confirming that I was correct, and started to calculate an answer with distances plucked from your imagination.
You may finish your calculation at your leisure.
When you come up with your figure, you may care to try to tell someone that the result is too small to affect the future outcome of a chaotic system.
I suppose someone may value your opinion about being the arbiter of what is relevant and what’s not – even though that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation applies throughout the universe – unless you can show otherwise.
By the way, there is a physical constant consisting of a number divided by 10 followed by 51 zeros. I suppose you could determine such a small quantity to be irrelevant, but would anybody care?
I think what Swenson may be getting at is this. As the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth the Sun, other planets and masses, according to Newton, no matter where they are located, have a very slight effect on those orbits. Even closer larger masses like Saturn and Jupiter have very little effect on those orbits, however, and the Sun has only a mall effect on the lunar orbit.
The irrelevance of the candle is itself irrelevant. Swenson proved using Newton that it ‘should’ have an effect.
It’s all in your equation of Newton’s gravitational law.
By the by, the notion that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming and climate change is just as irrelevant as the candle. There is more proof that the candle has relevance than the trace gas.
Gordon,
Everything in the universe has an effect on everything else. In a chaotic system, there is no minimum disturbance required to make the future state of a fully deterministic system completely unpredictable.
As E Lorenz pointed out, the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may cause a tornado in Texas. On the other hand, it may prevent a tornado from occurring – in Texas, or somewhere else!
The future is unpredictable. Even depending on quantum mechanics won’t help – the uncertainty principle puts paid to that! And, believe it or not, the uncertainty principle is the foundation stone of quantum electrodynamic theory!
Oh well, the GHE cultists have invented a “Planck effect” to overcome any objections to the fact that the GHE simultaneously heats and cools the planet.
Folkerts explains why CO2 can NOT warm Earth’s surface:
A car parked under a carport can be frost free when a car in the open is covered with frost. Same air temperature. The different is IR radiation. One gets “warm IR” from the carport roof, the other gets “cold IR” form the sky.
Got it! IR can warm cars, but not the ground.
I’m not sure you really “got it”, Folkerts.
Your “warm IR” can warm, but your “cold IR” can not warm.
That’s why ice cubes can not boil water.
> “warm IR” can warm
Does Pupman know about the dormitive principle?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Got it! IR can warm cars, but not the ground.”
Why do you say such a silly thing? Rhetorical question – because you are silly, and believe in “cold rays”!
That is one of the most annoying aspects of these discussions.
I never claimed there are “cold rays”.
I carefully explained once already what I *did* mean.
And yet people just looking for ‘zingers’ can’t let go of their strawmen.
Tim,
What you said was “One gets “warm IR” from the carport roof, the other gets “cold IR” form the sky.”
Are you trying to say that the carport roof is warmer than the air surrounding it? Unlikely, as under the conditions you have outlined, the carport roof will be covered with frost, just like “the car in the open” (which you may notice is covering frost-free ground, cold as it is)!
One gets IR. You obviously don’t understand why clouds (or a roof) prevent the phenomenon known as “radiation frost”.
“Warm IR” from a colder object? Don’t be silly Tim. Learn some physics, and stop trying to play “silly semantic games”.
You could try growing a backbone, and stating whether the GHE heats the planet, cools the planet, or has no effect at all. Be prepared to defend your position, of course. In the meantime, scuttle away, and dream up some more fantasy scenarios!
Tim is away with the fairies again.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR. Tim, supreme fantasist and reality denier that he is, has to invent “cold rays” (which he cunningly calls “cold IR” hoping to sound sciency) to obscure his lack of knowledge.
Earlier, i pointed out problems with Tim’s fantasy illusions, putting some restraints on his imagination, and he was most unhappy.
Anyone interested can see Tim’s response above, and I will repeat some of it here –
“No. My heaters consist of electric heating elements with constant POWER, not water with constant TEMPERATURE. Try again.
And even with your attempted hijack, the insulated box will warm faster and cool slower. It will have a higher average temperature because of “slower cooling”.
“Now you are going to claim ”
Nope. But now you are going to throw out more strawmen.
Three swings. Three misses. I think you just struck out.”
Tim steadfastly refuses to put numbers on anything, because I would likely point out the silliness of his “analogies”. Tim is unable to address the reality of the Earth and its atmosphere, and the Sun.
Tim is still trying to convince others that cooling, slow or otherwise, results in increased temperatures, although he has now modified his position to the usual GHE cultist method of avoiding reality – “average temperatures” are said to have increased, to due to cooling.
Once again, no numbers, and he refuses to believe that temperature dropping at night is cooling. In Tims distorted perception, the “average” temperature of the Earth’s surface has risen as the surface cooled over four and a half billion years!
What a donkey he is!
No GHE, Tim. Cooling is cooling, slow or fast.
Christos Vournas says: “Scientists, who say atmospheric (~400 ppm) CO2 warms earth’s surface do a huge mistake too.”
What about scientists who say a bullet to the head, which only covers 0.005% of the body surface area, can kill you? Are they mistaken?
That’s probably the dumbest thing you’ve ever stated, Ark.
Too much coffee, or not enough?
So, are you saying that a bullet to the head which only covers 0.005% of the body surface area, is only math and has no physical meaning? Yes, or No?
Arkady,
“Christos Vournas says: Scientists, who say atmospheric (~400 ppm) CO2 warms earths surface do a huge mistake too.
What about scientists who say a bullet to the head, which only covers 0.005% of the body surface area, can kill you? Are they mistaken?”
–
Arkady, do they also say:
“atmospheric (~400 ppm) CO2 warms earths surface” ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m saying only children would compare that to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Grow up.
You are having an emotional breakdown in real time! My remark must have been right on target.
No breakdown here, Ark.
I just enjoy watching you make a f00l of yourself. Again.
Clint,
If Arkady put his foot in his mouth, and then shot himself in the foot, nobody would notice.
Swensons Arkady, analogous to Schrodinger’s cat, I suppose.
He blathers on, unable to explain what the GHE is supposed to do in realty. Heat? Cool? Cool by heating? Heat by cooling?
Too much for Arkady, that’s why he attempts to get sympathy by threatening to shoot himself in the head! He should try it, and see what happens.
Ho ho ho!
Oooooooh! What a zinger! The world trembles before the intellectual might of an anonymous dimwit who passionately defends a GHE which he can’t even describe in any way that reflects reality!
Are you really so stupid as to believe that wrapping a glowing rocky planet with a thin wrapper of colder atmosphere is going to make it hotter?
Of course not. The planet has cooled. The surface is no longer glowing with heat – unlike the remaining 99%+ of the planet’s interior.
Did you have to work hard at appearing dim, or were you born like that?
15 C air temperature is cold.
Only in an Ice Age can global air temperature become 15 C or colder.
The current global surface air temperature is about 15 C.
And the current global land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
We could make ocean settlements which could have a higher average surface air temperature.
“the orbital forcings (themselves) do not have significant changes on the scale of few hundred years.”
–
Yes they have, when sea ice melts to water. It is a phenomenon that is observed only on our planet Earth in the entire Solar System!
–
Also we are witnessing the orbital forcing in every years seasonal changes. If it was not for the ice melting to water, and then refreezing again, what the seasonal changes would have been about?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t know where your quote comes from, but it is pretty clear the “orbital forcings” it refers to are things like changes in eccentricity, changes in obliquity, and precession. These all have periods greater than 25,000 years. They only change significantly with time frames on the order of 1000 years, not 100 years.
And in particular, “seasons” would NOT count as “orbital forcings”.
Thank you, Tim.
“These all have periods greater than 25,000 years. They only change significantly with time frames on the order of 1000 years, not 100 years.”
–
Exactly. And Earth is in millennial long orbitally forced warming trend now.
It is a continuous warming, which was earlier observed as MWP. It continous now.
–
The LIA was a short period, which got all of us puzzled. It happened (the LIA) because Earth is the only solar system planet has water and ice.
–
Water has specific heat 1 cal/(gr*oC)
Ice has specific heat 0,5 cal/(gr*oC)
–
In the thousands years cycle, there is the period, when temperature has risen to the levels which permit a much more intensive the sea ice melting.
As a result, there was a significant drop in air’s temperature, and, also, there was observed the land glaciers growing – the period called Little Ice Age (LIA).
–
But this period (LIA) has passed, and the Global temperature continues rising.
–
The yearly seasons also happen because of the Earth’s orbital motion.
And there is also a short period, when ice melts (early in the spring) and, when the water refreezes (late autumn).
–
It is a well observed phenomenon, when ice and snow melts, the air temperature drops, it is a short period. But the warming towards the summer never stops advancing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” Exactly. And Earth is in millennial long orbitally forced warming trend now. ”
*
You are absolutely wrong.
You have been explained many times that the contrary is the case.
We are currently in the middle of all three Milankovitch cycles, and are very slowly entering a cooling phase due to tiniest changes in Earth’s orbit eccentricity, axial tilt and precession.
*
When you write:
” Milankovitch made a mistake, because in his time he witnessed a gradual cooling. ”
you behave incredibly arrogant, just like few the pseudo-scientists denŷing on this blog the lunar spin – on the base of no more than their personal gut feeling and trivial ‘arguments’.
You are exactly as unable to scientifically disprove Milankovitch as are the other guys unable to disprove Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all the people who followed them.
Binny,
What is the GHE supposed to do? Cool? Heat?
What do “Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all the people who followed them.” have to say on the matter?
Nothing, I guess.
Sad.
thats very interesting. the ellipse eccen.tricity can have a long period between maximum and minimum but that doesn’t mean it has to change smoothly year over year.
Tim,
You obviously don’t like chaos theory. I’ll encapsulate it for you.
In a chaotic system, the approximate present does not determine the approximate future. In a chaotic system, no external influence at all is needed to precipitate chaotic behaviour. There is no minimum perturbation necessary to trigger chaos.
Even the IPCC acknowledges the chaotic nature of Nature, and states that it is not possible to predict future climate states!
What is the GHE supposed to do? You don’t really know, do you?
Go on, spell it out!
Only joking – I know you can’t.
Swenson, You are several steps behind. Let’s catch you up a bit.
As you note, slight changes in the initial conditions (corresponding to x,y,z in the animation) in a chaotic system cause the paths to slowly diverge. Like this animation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3kNHomvU0k (or like in the weather).
But the paths still stay in the same general spaces; they stay around the two attractors. This is what you are describing. Even if the sun and the orbit and the atmosphere stay the same, we still can’t predict weather going off into the future. Different weather (individual paths), but same climate (set of possible paths).
What is being discussed HERE is a change in the conditions (corresponding to sigma, beta, and rho in the animation). This moves to attractors to NEW locations. While we still couldn’t predict the future paths we COULD predict the paths would be in different regions.
The discussion is about changing the SYSTEM; changing the ATTRACTORS; changing the CLIMATE.
what tim is actually saying is climate changes chaotically on a different time scale than weather does. he pretends that climate is only stuff that can vary for two decades and that all else is known.
but we don’t know the patterns of chaotic solar variation, patterns of multiple volcanic eruptions over time, the millennial processes of ocean mixing. we are barely scratching the surface on the topic of climate. we don’t even know what our ancestors had for a climate.
what we are really mostly dealing with is fear of hardship by those who have never known hardship.
“what tim is actually saying is climate changes chaotically on a different time scale than weather does.”
Yes, that is indeed pretty much what I was saying. Weather can be predict quite well hours or days ahead, but is tough to predict weeks or months ahead. Climate can be predicted pretty well years or decades ahead, but not centuries or millennia,
“he pretends that climate is only stuff that can vary for two decades and that all else is known.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. I and not pretend ‘all else’ is known.
The whole discussion was about “orbital forcings”, which are changes that affect CLIMATE on long-scale time frames (millennia). Decadal changes are not really even part of this discussion.
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Palmowski wrote on November 26, 2023 at 1:43 AM:
” The winter that has begun in North America and Europe may be the longest winter in decades in these regions. A great deal of energy will be needed. ”
In decades? Until now, mid December, we still are far away from the last winter deserving the name (2010-11), let alone from those in 1986/87, 1978/79 etc.
As so often, Palmowski’s cold weather ‘predictions’ for Europe aren’t worth anything.
*
Apart from heavy snowfall over southern Germany two weeks ago, due to a head-on collision between two extremely different pressure areas, nothing so far looked like the start of the ‘longest winter in decades’.
Night minima forecast for 2023, Dec 24:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231224&daytime=night&iid=euro
Apart from the usually cold temperatures in North Scandinavia, it’s much much too warm here.
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/f1aa82d2-5428-4a13-be2f-f4e57974089a/56e4103ea2962af4cd50d0ec9a578d97/030e3ee2-4149-4982-b565-806ef7cba2a5.png?fm=webp
-5 C in Moscow mid December? So what.
Earlier, some bumbling GHE cultist made the comment –
“Why not? Cuz you guys have never offer science answers for them.
Oh well!”
Anybody who uses the word “science” in that fashion does not understand what science is about.
Did I just make that up, or did a very smart person say it?
Oooooooh! What a zinger! The world trembles before the intellectual might of a sock puppet who passionately denies the greenhouse effect which he can describe in a way that reflects reality!
Is Mike Flynn really so silly as to believe that his word games about the word “warming” is relevant in the grand scheme of things?
Of course not. 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, and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.
What is he braying about and, more importantly, why?
Willard, please stop trolling.
–FORTIFY, FORTIFY: The Worlds Oldest Settlements Were Built by a Culture Nobody Expected.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-worlds-oldest-settlements-were-built-by-a-culture-nobody-expected
Plus: Several other Stone Age forts have been found in this region of the world, but none are as old as the Amnya I site. In Europe, comparable sites dont show up until centuries later and only after the dawn of agriculture. . . . Researchers suspect that a shift in climate roughly 8,000 years ago created the stage for an abundance of seasonal resources in western Siberia, prompting an influx of human migrants.
This was during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when the climate was significantly warmer than today.
Posted at 8:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
more calculus schooling for Ark.
Draw yourself a curve on an x-y plane where the curve goes through 0,0. Move along the x-axis to a point x, and draw a vertical line to the curve. Draw a horizontal line from that point to the y axis. That point is at y = f(x), therefore the same point on the curve is f(x).
Now draw point on the x-axis to the right of x and call it x+h. Extending it vertically to the curve will then be the point f(x+h). We are going to move the point at f(x+h) down the curve toward f(x). Since h is also the interval on the x axis between x and x+h, it will get smaller as the point moves down the curve,
As the point moves down the curve, we want to know the limit of y = f(x) as h->0, that is as h gets smaller and smaller. We define the process as…
dy/dx = limit t->0 [f(x+h) – f(x)]/h
We call dy/dx the derivative of the function y = f(x) and that is the basic concept in differential calculus.
But wait…f(x+h) – f(x) is the change in y as x changes and is also defined as delta y/delta x (your triangles). Therefore…
dy/dx = limit h->0 [f(x+h) – f(x)]/h is the same thing as writing
dy/dy = limit (delta x)->0 [delta y/delta x]
That explains the difference. Delta x is a larger scale variable whereas the differential operator, d, refers only to an infinitasimal value.
Of course, Ark will come back with an ad hom or insult, proving he has no understanding of what is being explained.
I gave the shorthand derivation of the Planck Feedback here.
This is the longhand version…
1/ Given: E(T)= σ*T^4,
2/ ΔE/ΔT = [E(T+ ΔT) – E(T)]/ΔT.
Where: E(T+ΔT)=σ*(T+ΔT)^4
= σ*(T^4+4*T^3*ΔT+6*T^2*ΔT^2+4*T*ΔT^3+ΔT^4).
3/ Then (ΔE/ΔT)
=[σ*(T^4+4*T^3*ΔT+6*T^2*ΔT^2+4*T*ΔT^3+ΔT^4)-σ*T^4]/ΔT
= σ*(4*T^3+6*T^2*ΔT+4*T*ΔT^2+ΔT^3).
4/ As ΔT approaches zero, ΔE/ΔT = 4*σ*T^3,
and solving for ΔE: ΔE=4*σ*T^3*ΔT.
Q.E.D.
A,
You wrote –
“Lets assume we have an initial positive forcing that causes the temperatures in the troposphere to warm, e.g. Dr Roy Spencers graph at the top of the page. This leads to increased emitted terrestrial radiation to space, and the increased heat loss opposes the forcing and leads to cooling.”
In other words, if you heat an object like the atmosphere , it will cool again, if allowed to do so.
Very profound! – not!
Are you intentionally trying to look silly, or does it come naturally?
The children are STILL confused about Moon. It’s been YEARS, yet they can’t understand such simple concepts as:
* The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without spin”.
* Moon has zero angular momentum.
* Moon’s orbit is the result of two vectors acting on it.
No facts will change the minds of cult children, so this is just for responsible adults.
No children allowed past this point.
This simple graphic (at link below) demonstrates the science quite well.
1) Click on the link.
2) Move to the page where you can select “Model”
3) In the rectangular box on the right, click to turn on both gravity and velocity vectors.
4) Click the “Play” button at the bottom.
5) Note how the orbital path is determined by the resultant of the two vectors.
6) Now turn off gravity and note how the planet moves off in a straight line.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_all.html
“The ball-on-a-string is a model of ‘orbital motion without spin'”
The BOS is only a good model for a BOS.
“Now turn off gravity and note how the planet moves off in a straight line.”
Unlike a weight in the sports does. It has long been documented to turn on its axis during flight.
Indeed.
Watch here.
schlagkasper.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/betty-heidler-hammer-throw/
Note how the ball-on-a-string continues to rotate after release; as the Moon would continue to rotate after switching off Earth’s gravity.
EM,
If the thrower released the hammer at the point where there is no residual torque (the thrower has to “lead” the hammer, inducing torque on the hammer, otherwise the hammer will simply remain on the ground), then the hammer will not rotate.
Unfortunately, this is impossible. If the thrower removes the force imparting the torque, the hammer falls to the ground.
Maybe you could look at the shot put, where the putter is using the spin technique. The shot is rotating about the putters head, and then forcefully put the shot at a tangent to the circle. Unfortunately, of course, the putter spins the shot about an internal axis upon release. The hand is moving at the point of release, imparting a torque to the departing shot.
All very tricky. Even pro golfers have difficulty in driving a golf ball in a straight line without any side spin at all!
“All very tricky. Even pro golfers have difficulty in driving a golf ball in a straight line without any side spin at all!”
Now that creates a problem. You claim that the Moon maintains zero angular momentum relative to the Earth, yet the Moon is continually perturbed by a variety of asymmetric forces originating from the Earth and other planets.
Something must be acting to maintain zero angular momentum. What is this stabilising force?
ent…the problem with the release is that cutting the string in any manner introduces a torque that was not there before. In other words, a force must be applied to the string to cut it, or if the string is simply released, the string itself adds a torque due to its trailing mass. It would be virtually impossible to release the ball from the string without introducing a torque.
If you examine the ball before release, it might even have a slight torque applied by the string as it tries to maintain the ball in an elliptical motion. Remember, the ball wants to fly off along a tangential path and all times and the string tension serves to guide it along a curved path. Furthermore, the person operating the string by applying tension must apply an accelerating force to keep the ball moving and to keep it from falling due to gravity.
None of this applies to the Moon. It always has a linear momentum and if gravity is suddenly turned off there is nothing that can apply a torque to it. There is no trailing residue, like trailing string or chain whose momentum can apply a torque.
You almost got it, Bordo.
What would be the odds that the Moon was propelled into orbit using a perfectly direct force?
Bear in mind that your answer must also account for its formation.
As predicted, the kids don’t understand any of this. RLH can’t understand the simple model, and neither he nor Ent knows what “moves off in a straight line” means.
Kids these days….
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Why do you confuse shutting off gravity with removing its visual line?
Clint R
It is not the posters you call “kids” that don’t understand. You voice your opinion. Noted but wrong. You are the one with the childish thinking. You now have a new term to go with your incorrect and misleading use of cult. Now you are going about calling everyone who does not agree with your incorrect opinions “children” or kids.
You do not know what science is not do you know what cult thinking is. You use both terms frequently but understand neither.
Cult thinking is exactly what you do. Denigrate opposing ideas (childish, cultish or any of the many insults you use for opposition of your cult thinking) and offer zero evidence for any of it.
You make false declarations (theory of tidal locking is debunked) but offer zero evidence. You do not understand it at all but tidal forces create bulges and the gravitational attraction on the opposing bulges is different which creates a torque against the spin.
Science is about evidence. I asked for your proof that Nitrogen gas will reflect IR and to date you provided zero. You make many claims, like a hot surface cannot absorb IR from a colder one. This goes against experimentally tested science (which you reject in favor of your cult opinions). You make fun of Gordon Robertson but you are as ignorant of real science as he is.
If you want to learn real science you should read and attempt to understand Tim Folkerts posts. He know science far better than you can hope to. If you start understanding his content you will move away from cult mentality into actual science mentality (one that requires some evidence to support any and all claims).
Oh, I nearly missed poor Norman’s latest dump of his opinions. Funny, but not as funny as when he tries to present his “science”….
3)There is no gravitational velocity vector, the vector represents acceleration toward Earth’s centre due to gravitational force. You cannot have a resultant between acceleration and velocity vectors.
The only resultant you could have is between gravitational force and lunar momentum, if you could convert momentum to an equivalent force. That is, the force required to decelerate the momentum to zero velocity. However, that would be a force applied with a time factor and would not be suitable for an instantaneous resultant force.
Thanks Gordon. We’ll add orbital motion and vectors to the growing list of things you don’t understand.
To add vectors the units must be the same. So, you typically see the vectors both converted to acceleration, or force. But, that was not needed for the purpose of my comment. Remember, children were not permitted in. It was for responsible adults only.
Sorry.
Set the simulation to show the earth and moon. As the moon is orbiting, turn of gravity and watch the moon fly off in a straight line … while continuing to rotate on its own axis.
oops!
Yes Folkerts, they have that programmed wrong. But you don’t know it’s wrong because you don’t understand the physics. I’ll try to find time to explain it later — busy week.
Until then, study up on vector addition.
I gotta laugh. Anything that agrees with clint is right. anything that disagrees is wrong. We need to learn physics, but not the physics that is taught in universities and explained in text books.
Tell you what, go ask the creators of the animation that you tout which is right and which is wrong.
Self goal!
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
To some people, the silly notion that “…the Earth’s orbit is affected by the gravitational effect of the mass of a candle at the end of the universe” is not irrelevant at 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001; yes, that’s 33 zeros to the left of a 1.
However, the same people say that 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere “does not amount to a hill of beans.”
I smell an agenda!
A,
Well done – you can use a calculator!
Even more impressive is the fact that the force of gravity is weaker than the nuclear force by about a factor of 10 followed by forty zeros (possibly 41).
Yes, that’s 39 or 40 zeros to the left of a 1. Did I get that right, Arkady? If so, my number is a thousand million times smaller – but very significant!
Actually, Arkady, 1 mol of stuff specifies 6.022. 10^23 individual items of that stuff, so maybe you had far too few zeros to the left of the 1. A candle contains lots and lots of atoms, all attracting (and being attracted by) every other atom in the universe!
As I mentioned before, there is no minimum perturbation necessary to produce a completely unpredictable outcome in a chaotic system. None. A candle is positively enormous compared with an atom, and an atom is positively enormous compared with a low energy photon.
The uncertainty in the position of a photon affects a chaotic system – no minimum perturbation required.
All beside the point, really. There is no GHE, and the effect of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is completely unpredictable.
Back to your calculator! Maybe you can help Bindidon to dissect the past, and hence predict the future! Dumb and dumber.
what are you talking about. It adds about 0.04 mass to the atmosphere.
Bill,
Arkady can’t even bring himself to say whether the GHE is supposed to cool the planet or heat it up!
The latest GHE cultist nonsense seems to be to create a previously unknown “Planck effect”, which miraculously overcomes any GHE heating, resulting in cooling (or something).
Most certainly, an effect for all eventualities – heats, cools, causes floods and droughts, rising and falling sea levels, glaciers advancing and retreating, possibly even halitosis or the absence thereof.
On the other hand, if it didn’t exist, nobody would be any the wiser, would they?
All good for a laugh, albeit an expensive form of amusement, all things considered.
looks like he agrees with you.
What you smell is your own alarmist propaganda, which reeks a lot like manure. Mind you, I imagine that farmers and their ilk, who grow accustomed to the reek of manure likely become comfortable with it.
Whereas the candle’s influence is explained by Newton’s law of gravitation, the 0.04% of CO2 is explained by both the Ideal Gas Law and the equation explaining heat diffusion. The latter law of thermodynamics explain clearly that a 0.04% concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can supply no more heat to the air mixture than its mass percent which is about 0.06%. Try raising the temperature in a room by 0.06% and see if anyone notices.
Comparing the CO2 effect to the candle effect is far worse than comparing apples to oranges.
Cool story, Bordo.
How is can such an insignificant trace gas be crucial to life on Earth?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Testing.
US Citizens. Oppose funding the UN. Now, American taxpayer money is going to be used to fund this BS.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/last-residents-coastal-mexican-town-152016095.html
Stephen P Anderson
A question for one who thinks Trump is a good human and would make a fine leader. Why is it that the more he talks like Hitler (even using terms used by that horrid Dictator) the more you Trump Lovers worship him? What happened to patriots who admire Liberty? They are loving one who will offer Freedom only to those who demonstrate absolute loyalty. Wonder what is up with your mind. How does it admire such a awful human as Trump who will indeed work to destroy the very foundation of the US.
I think you are the one who brought up the “1000 mules” movie but you are totally ignoring the Trump loyalists were actually going to use false electorates to throw the election in Trump’s favor. Some movie you believe without question but real misdeeds are totally ignored by you. How is this possible? Is your brain totally turned off and you can’t think at all on your own. You need Tucker Carlson to tell you how to think and what to believe?
Bindidon,
“We are currently in the middle of all three Milankovitch cycles, and are very slowly entering a cooling phase due to tiniest changes in Earths orbit eccentricity, axial tilt and precession.”
–
Not the cooling phase, but the in the culmination of the warming phase.
The cooling phase is yet to come.
–
It is like the Northern Hemisphere’s summer at the first decade of July.
We also, at first decade of July, we also slowly entering a cooling phase, due to small mitigation changes in the duration of solar hours…
But, nevertheless, in first decade of July, at Northen Hemisphere’s summer, the temperature instead of falling, continues to rise.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m surprised there’s people who actually think GHG’s can overpower nature so much so that natural variability gets interrupted. It clearly doesn’t because about 37% of the record is a pause.
Science can be rather myopic at times, when scientists narrow in on their own era and forget that change often takes centuries to occur. It is painfully obvious that alarmists have over-looked the long-term effects related to recoveru from a mini-ice age.
Syun Akasofu, an expert on the solar wind, has claimed that the IPCC erred by not taking the Little Ice Age into account when they blamed current warming on anthropogenic CO2. Why was the LIA named an ice age if that’s not what it was? Following an ice age, we would expect a recovery featuring warming, and it won’t occur quickly due the properties of the Earths orbit and axial tilt.
We know why the IPCC has ignored the LIA, they have a mandate only to find proof of anthropogenic warming. In that capacity, it would have been more appropriate simply to ignore the LIA, however, the IPCC has dismissed it as a local phenomenon in Europe. That simplicity in thinking reveals an abject bias in the IPCC since they have not explained how Europe could cool by 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet remained at normal temperatures.
It is clear that the IPCC are either stoopid or just plain cheaters.
What the heck do Milankovitch cycles have to do with GHGs?
Nothing.
What the heck do GHGs have to do with 37% of a temperature record?
Nothing.
Binny,
What the heck do GHGs have to do with a non-existent GHE?
Nothing. Two fantasies just make another fantasy.
What relevance does Binny have on this blog? None.
Binny is a monkey.
We all are, Walter.
Except Pupman. It’s just a puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
And it seems to me that Hogle is a coward, always insulting below Robertson’s posts.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Nate wrote –
“”Nate, Earth WITHOUT GHGs would be even warmer.”
Evidence?
Nah, who am I kidding?
Everyone understands that you just make up nonsense that cant ever be supported.”
Evidence? The Moon has no GHGs, and temperatures due to sunlight of over 125 C have been recorded on the surface.
Earth, with GHGs, can achieve nothing like that temperature. Even in arid deserts (the least amount of GHGs, temperature does not exceed 60 C. The Moon gets hotter than the Earth!
Go on, babble about some “average surface temperature”. About 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, and thermometer reading are not made of the surface.
You are a gullible nutter, living in a fantasy world. Accept reality if you dare!
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“The Moon has no GHGs, and temperatures due to sunlight of over 125 C have been recorded on the surface.”
You seem to forget that temperatures can reach -130C during nighttime, that its poles are even colder, and that the average temperature should be under -20C.
So what are you braying about?
Whining Wee Willy,
The Moon has no GHGs, and temperatures due to sunlight of over 125 C have been recorded on the surface.
Earth, with GHGs, can achieve nothing like that temperature. Even in arid deserts (the least amount of GHGs, temperature does not exceed 60 C. The Moon gets hotter than the Earth!
Obviously you don’t disagree, otherwise you would have said so!
Maybe you want to talk about the lack of GHGs also resulting in colder temperatures? Of course they do. Just look at the coldest temperatures recorded on Earth – also where GHGs are at a minimum. Just basic radiative physics!
You don’t understand any of this, do you? Go on, tell everyone whether the GHE is supposed to result in temperatures increasing or decreasing, where, when, and by how much!
You are really thick, arent you?
Mike Flynn,
The average temperature of the Moon is way lower than the Earth.
What are you braying about?
Well, gee, Willard, considering more than 99% of the Earth’s mass is glowing hot, why is that surprising (even if true)?
Maybe you are simply gullible and confused (or the other way round), or just simple.
Have you decided whether the GHE makes things cooler, hotter, or the same?
Carry on displaying your IQ.
Mike Flynn,
Glowing hot?
The average temperature of the Earth is 15C!
What are you braying about?
Well, gee, Willard, considering more than 99% of the Earths mass is glowing hot, why is that surprising (even if true)?
Maybe you are simply gullible and confused (or the other way round), or just simple.
Have you decided whether the GHE makes things cooler, hotter, or the same?
Carry on displaying your IQ.
Is 15C glowing hot, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Evidence? The Moon has no GHGs, and temperatures due to sunlight of over 125 C have been recorded on the surface.”
You are an expert at ignoring confounding variables, like the very long lunar day!
And inconvenient facts, like the lower average Temp.
Nate,
Evidence? The Moon has no GHGs, and temperatures due to sunlight of over 125 C have been recorded on the surface.
After the same exposure time. Heats up even faster than arid deserts on Earth!
You don’t know much, do you? Reduced IQ, is it?
“After the same exposure time.”
FALSE.
The hot side of the Moon has continuous sunlight for 14 days.
No place on Earth has that!
You just can’t get anything right..
Nate says:
”You are an expert at ignoring confounding variables, like the very long lunar day!”
Looks like Nate and Cristos are on the same page with the GHE varying with the rotation rate.
Looks like Gill and Mike Flynn finally agree that there is a greenhouse effect.
Success!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
lost my place…failed post…
rlh…”Unlike a weight in the sports does. It has long been documented to turn on its axis during flight”.
***
Can you offer and example of a independent body doing what you claim? To put a spin on a soccer ball, you have to strike it off centre. As the ball spins it interact with air and curves. I have hit soccer ball dead on and watched the motion of the panels from the rear and noticed them oscillating a bit but the oscillation is back and forth, depending on how hard you hit the ball. The force applied seems to interact with air and likely with imperfections in the ball, causing the back and forth oscillations.
Any sports ball or device that is spherical, will not rotate by its own means unless it is unbalanced. In the hammer throw, with ball and chain, the moment the ball is released it is dragging a relatively heavy chain behind it and upon release, the chain is dragged behind the ball in such a manner that it swings behind the ball producing a torque,
There is no reason why the Moon, with no such appendages or air resistance should begin spinning if released from the Earth’s gravitational field.
“Can you offer and example of a independent body doing what you claim?”
Yes. See video above.
Cool story, Bordo.
The Moon has two bulges.
Willard,
Well, gee, Willard, that’s nice and irrelevant, isn’t it?
Got anything equally useless?
Mike Flynn,
The fact that the Moon has two bulges defeats Bordo’s theory about perfectly round objects.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The fact that the Moon has two bulges defeats Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.”
I haven’t come across “Bordo’s theory about perfectly round objects”. I don t believe such a theory exists, and you are just being a silly troll!
“Perfectly round objects”? Sounds like a load of ballocks to me.
Mike Flynn,
You write –
“I havent come across “Bordo’s theory about perfectly round object””
That’s too bad.
You should try to read Bordo’s comments from time to time.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The fact that the Moon has two bulges defeats Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.”
I havent come across “Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.. I don t believe such a theory exists, and you are just being a silly troll!
“Perfectly round objects”? Sounds like a load of ballocks to me.
You’re just making stuff up, aren’t you?
You already said that, Mike.
Should I be concerned if you’re too lazy to read Bordo’s comments?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote The fact that the Moon has two bulges defeats Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.
I havent come across Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.. I don t believe such a theory exists, and you are just being a silly troll!
Perfectly round objects? Sounds like a load of ballocks to me.
Youre just making stuff up, arent you?
Mike Flynn,
Bordo just talked about perfectly round things.
You are playing dumb again.
Long live and prosper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The fact that the Moon has two bulges defeats Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.”
I havent come across “Bordos theory about perfectly round objects.. I don t believe such a theory exists, and you are just being a silly troll!
“Perfectly round objects”? Sounds like a load of bollocks to me.
Youre just making stuff up, arent you?
And now you’ve been caught out lying, you are trying to duck and weave!
What a pathetic loser you are!
Your responses sound hollow, Mike.
Is it because you confuse Planck feedback with the SB Law?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Good morning from Athens, Greece!
–
Yesterday is said to be the coldest day of December in Athens, +11C. We had some snow on the mountains at 800 meters.
This morning it is +4C outside.
It is +15C inside, at my study.
–
The sky is clear, so the day will be extremelly shiny. I am not putting on any heating device.
Just got dressed more and waiting for the sun hitting my windows. It will in about 20 minutes from now, the sun is still behind a big hill.
–
The prognosis for today is max.+14C, and for tomorrow max.+18C.
–
Good day to everyone!
E3l Nino is over
You almost got it, but not quite!
I fixed it for you:
“if you heat an object like the atmosphere, it will cool again,” but faster due to the Planck Feedback.
And, no, no one “invented a ‘Planck effect’ “. The Planck Feedback is negative feedback, a direct consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which says that the energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature. As the Earth (and its atmosphere) warms, it emits more infrared radiation into space. Of course, the water vapor (+), snow/ice albedo (+), lapse rate (-), and cloud (+/-/?) feedbacks are all also operating.
Planck’s feedback is applied to the Earth’s surface emitting the imaginary 240 W/m^2.
Since the 240 W/m^2 is a result of a mathematical abstraction, Planck’s feedback is a mathematical abstraction too.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All of physics is a ‘mathematical abstraction’ of the real world. Your own models are ‘mathematical abstractions’. That alone tells us nothing about whether the ‘mathematical abstractions’ are valuable. We instead need to see if the ‘mathematical abstractions’ accurately predict anything useful about the world.
NIce rambling, Folkerts — starts and ends with NOTHING.
yes and some people use the ”popular” abstractions to imagine single motions as being two motions. and around here it doesn’t stop there.
Bill,
Your ‘single motion’ is a rather vague semantic issue.
Can you define what you mean by it?
The point is that a motion that is best described as a
ROTATION, which is a changing orientation,
is a different motion from one best described as a
TRANSLATION, which is a changing position.
And body with both position and orientation changing is best described as a Combination of two motions:
TRANSLATION plus ROTATION.
So you admit that claiming the moon both translates and rotates at the same time is simply a semantical description of THE motion of the moon?
I am ready for that. So Madhavi gave some examples of translations and rotations.
Do you think that the closest description of the moon’s motion is as rotation around an external axis or do you see the closest example as being a wheel rolling around the earth on a track?
If someone can ask ‘where is the Moon going to be tonight?’ that makes it pretty darn clear that the Moon is changing it’s position continuously.
It is TRANSLATING through space.
And from the POV of the inertial frame of the stars, it is obvious that the Moon is changing it’s orientation.
It is ROTATING.
Therefore the best description of it’s motion is the one used by Astronomy: its motion is a Combination of Translation and Rotation.
A rotation around an external axis is a special case of that, requiring that the body is
-translating in a circular orbit around the external axis
-rotating and translating in the same plane.
Neither of those are true for the Moon.
Nate says:
A rotation around an external axis is a special case of that, requiring that the body is
-translating in a circular orbit around the external axis
-rotating and translating in the same plane.
Neither of those are true for the Moon.
—————————
Nate again instead of asking of science kowtows to the Daddy that told him that.
Obviously the moon’s motion is not like a wheel rolling around the earth on an axle. And its absurd to suggest it translates around the earth on a elliptical wire suspended in space. It best fits a rotation on an external axis even despite what your Daddy says.
” It best fits a rotation on an external axis even despite what your Daddy says.”
Sure Bill, and I have a straight jacket that best fits you.
This is a ridiculous claim that has no evidence to support it.
-Your Mommy, Madhavi, says you are wrong.
-You desperation leads you to lie about what Cassini said. He said the opposite of your claims.
That means you lose the debate.
Now go home, relax and enjoy the holidays.
Whats the matter Nate? Can’t you figure out a mechanism different than Madhavi that makes a case that Madhavi didn’t even attempt to make?
Madhavi only offered up the wheel on an axle rolling down a straight road example. I was just trying to help you out with the Superman flying on a wire around the earth example. Can’t you do better?
She offers up the basic principles of Rigid Body Kinematics, and the basic definitions, which agree with every other source.
You assert, without any evidence or source, that her definition of ‘rotation about an external axis’, can be ignored.
And to boot, I have asked you multiple times for your alternative definition, one that works for your narrative, and you have shown none, nada, zilch.
Lacking that, your label: ‘rotation around an external axis’ becomes a meaningless term.
All you have is a personal opinion, a feeling, that you KNOW a rotation when you see one. Why should we care?
Its all explained here Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579195
bottom line each hinge pin, arm, plate, particles of a plate can either translate or rotate depending upon design of the system. But each of those individual things can only due one of the two.
“translate or rotate depending upon design of the system.”
Nope the motion is the motion, no matter what system design.
Nothing relevant at your link.
What is YOUR definition of rotation around an external axis? And show a source that gives it.
Nate says:
”translate or rotate depending upon design of the system.”
Nope the motion is the motion, no matter what system design.
———————–
thats what I just said Nate. If you had read the link you would know that because it was based upon the design of how Madhavi designed and thus defined the motions.
———————
Nate says:
”What is YOUR definition of rotation around an external axis? And show a source that gives it.”
here you go. All you need to know is that like all the laws and principles of physics they describe a relationship between one or more things without any perturbations from other things outside the idealized unperturbed relationship being described by the law or principle.
The link below will illuminate that your complaint against an orbit being a rotation on an external axis merely complains of real world consequences outside of the idealized definition.
(like earthquakes in an engineering design that will take the design to its limits and when the limits are exceeded by these external forces the whole thing is likely to collapse)
read it an weep.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579443
“Yet for years you have been calling this elliptical motion a rotation”
Utterly stoopid.
You are at a dead end.
Let’s see if Timothy Jane Folkerts can tell the difference between mathematical abstractions and the objective physical reality of what is going on with this model:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
“Timothy Jane Folkerts only.”
I don’t know anyone by that name. Does anyone else here know someone by that name?
Let’s see if Graham D. Warner can solve this puzzle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1576848
You’re on ignore for this sub-thread, Little Willy. Timothy Jane Folkerts only.
NIce rambling by Walker – starts and ends with NOTHING.
I see that Timothy Jane doesn’t have any answers. Mind you, he lost his seat at the table a long while ago with the moon issue stuff, by not even understanding that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is movement like the MOTL.
There is still no “Timothy Jane” here. I don’t know why you might be expecting an answer.
I see that Graham D. Warner has no coherent answer to a simple algebra puzzle.
No wonder he cannot solve a simple energy balance equation!
Perhaps he should stick to music?
I’ve never tried to solve an energy balance equation. I did correctly point out to you that 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earth’s surface area balances energy with 240 W/m^2 emitted over all the Earth’s surface area, though. You didn’t understand that for several months. Perhaps you should stick to trolling.
Graham D. Warner’s mishandling of a simple puzzle is preserved for eternity:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190931
Little Willy links to another argument that he lost.
Graham D. Warner still doesn’t know the answer to [J] xy/2 = ?
Little Willy is proud of his own confusion.
His incapacity to solve the simplest algebraic equation might explain why Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
All I was doing in that discussion was trying to explain to you that 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earth’s surface area balances energy with 240 W/m^2 emitted over all the Earth’s surface area. I even had to try to write it out for you algebraically, but you still couldn’t understand. Quite comical to look back on it now.
All Graham D. Warner was doing was trying to find a way not to plug two sides of a system with two equations.
Astute readers know that if he did he’d get a division by 4, and that’s anathema to Joe, and many other Sky Dragon cranks.
He’d rather break algebra and reinvent flux properties instead of accepting a simple zero-dimension energy balance model…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1577499
Christos Vournas, that’s like dismissing π as simply “a mathematical abstraction.”
1/ Planck’s law, not unlike Newton’s laws of motion, can be expressed using mathematical equations; however, it is not accurate to dismiss it as a mere abstraction.
2/ Planck’s law accurately describes the behavior of thermal radiation and has practical applications in astrophysics, thermodynamics, engineering, etc.
3/ Planck’s law explains the empirical fact that a warmer body emits with greater power (Joule/second/m^2) than a cooler body.
Plancks feedback, not Planck’s law.
A,
You are being dim-witted.
Here’s the Wikipedia entry for the mythical “Planck Feedback” –
“As the temperature of a black body increases, the emission of infrared radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature according to the StefanBoltzmann law. This increases the amount of outgoing radiation back into space as the Earth warms.”
A rehash of Planck’s Law, pretending to impart new information.
At least the GHE cult redefinition admits radiation goes to space from the surface – never to be seen again! Vanished! Gone!
So much for “energy in = energy out”!
You beclown yourself more, day by day.
Sorry, Stefan-Boltzmann, not Planck. The GHE cultist misdirections are sometimes confusing.
Just think about it:
If Earth’s surface were emitting those imaginary
240 W/m^2
Earth would have frozen to its very core a long time ago.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I did just think about it. And no it wouldn’t have.
Perhaps you are forgetting that earth is also RECEIVING about 240 W/m^2 on average from the sun, very nearly balancing the outgoing flow. The earth can emit 240 W/m^2 and still cool SLOOOOOWLY because the net flow inside the earth is on the order of 0.1 W/m^2.
Tim,
So the GHE is actually responsible for the Earth cooling “SLOOOOOWLY “, is it?
Nah. There is no GHE – the Earth is cooling slowly because it is slowly cooling. More energy out than energy in.
About 44 TW currently.
“So the GHE is actually responsible for the Earth cooling SLOOOOOWLY , is it?”
Nope. Once again you misunderstand.
The original proposition was that the earth is losing 240 W/m^2 and would cool quickly. This is false as I pointed out because the sun is shining. Nothing to do with the GHE. That is only your strawman; your misunderstanding of my position.
Tim,
So you have changed your position and now claim the Earth is not cooling “SLOOOOOWLY”, is that it?
You say that the Earth’s slow cooling is nothing to do with the GHE, and I agree.
Maybe you could grow a pair and say something really silly – for example, you could claim that the Earth is cooling SLOOOOOWLY, not due to the GHE, but heating up at the same time – due to the GHE!
Come on, Tim, is the GHE heating the planet or not?
How hard can it be?
“So you have changed your position and now claim the Earth is not cooling SLOOOOOWLY, is that it?”
You have too narrow of a view. And your question is too vague. And frankly your thinking is too shallow.
The INTERIOR of the earth is “SLOOOOOWLY cooling”. There is a temperature gradient and heat flows out from the core to the mantle; through the mantle; from the mantle to the crust. Each of these layers is continuously cooling (on the order of 1/10,000,000 K per year as ~ 44 TW moves upward).
Or put another way, the line on this graph will be maybe 1 millionth of a degree cooler (to the left) next year. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Geothermal_gradient.png/450px-Geothermal_gradient.png
Do you get that? Do you believe that I believe the interior is cooling? If so, stop pestering everyone about this.
****************************************
For the top centimeters or meters, the issue is more complicated. The top cm’s warm during the day and cool during the night. The top meters warm during the spring and summer, and cool during the fall and winter.
We cannot say these layers are warming or cooling during any specific hour or day or year or decade based just on the general cooling of the core, mantle and crust.
********************************
One step more removed, we can DEFINETLY not say the atmosphere is cooling based on the 44 TW geothermal energy flow. Your preoccupation with the MANTLE when the issue is the climate and atmosphere frankly continues to astound me.
********************************
So, I will indeed say something really obvious for example, I will claim that the INTERIOR OF THE Earth is cooling SLOOOOOWLY, not due to the GHE, but THE ATMOSPHERE is warming up at the same time due to the GHE!
Christos
Earth’s energy budget is all about equilibrium processes.
As Earth’s surface emits an average 240W/m^2 and maintains a constant temperature an average of 240W/m^2 must becoming in.
The same also applies to all parts of the climate system. If their energy content and temperature are constant, energy in equals energy out.
If the system goes out of equilibrium temperatures change. If incoming energy exceeds outgoing energy the temperature rises. If outgoing energy exceeds incoming energy the temperature falls.
This happens on all scales. This produces the day/night temperature cycle, the seasonal temperature cycle, the glacial/interglacial cycle and global warming.
E,
You wrote –
“If outgoing energy exceeds incoming energy the temperature falls.”
Exactly. That’s why the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, the temperature falls at night (as you admit), and so on.
You then go on to try to sneak in “. . . and global warming.”.
Don’t be silly. Cooling does not result in warming!
“If outgoing energy exceeds incoming energy the temperature falls.” – just like you wrote.
Ent,
“Earths energy budget is all about equilibrium processes.
As Earths surface emits an average 240W/m^2 and maintains a constant temperature an average of 240W/m^2 must becoming in.”
–
“Earths energy budget is all about equilibrium processes.”
Yes, I very much agree.
–
Earths surface doesn’t emit an average 240W/m^2, Earth’s surface maintains a constant temperature, Earth’s surface doesn’t have an average of 240W/m^2 coming in.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So you’re saying every National Academy of Science in the world, along with NASA, NOAA, the WMO and many more -the ones who actually do the measurements/studies are all wrong? Or just corrupt? Talk about dεlυsional.
Arkady,
“So youre saying every National Academy of Science in the world, along with NASA, NOAA, the WMO and many more -the ones who actually do the measurements/studies are all wrong? Or just corrupt? Talk about dεlυsional.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Where ever I look, Earths surface doesnt emit
240 W/m^2.
Arkady, the 240 W/m^2 figure is the (approximate) value at the top of the atmosphere, not at the surface. ~ 240 W/m^2 of sunlight comes in, and ~ 240 W/m^2 of IR leaves.
The numbers the the surface are more complicated, and include sunlight and IR, but also convection and evaporation.
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
I read upthread
” Newton knew that. He stated that the Moon moves with a linear motion while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. I have just described that motion. ”
Again and again, for the umpteenth time, the same distortion of what Newton really wrote in his ‘Principia’ (Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV).
Newton’s original text was translated in more than 10 different languages, including Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Mongolian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, and Swedish.
**
1. Original Latin text (commented – in Latin – between 1739 and 1742 by the two French priesters and mathematicians Leseur and Jacquier)
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
2. English translation by Ian Bruce, 2012 (look at page 23/24, i.e. 744/45)
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
{ Text enclosed in rectangular brackets ([…]) are explanations by Ian Bruce. }
” PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.
It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun
in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
It is evident that these are found from the phenomena [i.e. experimental data in modern jargon].
Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth ; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days.
Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore
according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676.
[Institutionum Astronomicarum libri duo, p.286-7; see note on p.16 of Book I of Newton’s Letters; these letters have been lost, but Newton’s help had been fully acknowledged in Mercator’s work.] ”
*
3. French translation in 1749 by the French science woman Emilie du Chatelet
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
*
4. German translation in 1872 by Prof. Wolfers (on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file, starting with ‘§21 Lehrsatz’)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
5. Appendix 7 (Septimò, De Luna) in Mercator’s ‘Institutionum astronomicarum libri duo’ (1676)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qvyw6iRsli-ui5en5HjCCfJ6hV2nb0gn/view
The link points to a pdf file which contains a correction of Google Docs’ digitized text; the link to the original document is in the pdf.
**
But the lunar spin denîal gang (Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, Bill Hunter and Swenson aka Flynn) will always invent some nonsense to ‘explain’ that Newton never was convinced of the lunar spin, even though he explicitly wrote that he communicated this to the German astronomer Mercator in… 1675.
*
The very best example of their denîal is the attempt to tell us that things that rotate ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ do not necessarily rotate from other points of view.
None of them was ever willing to understand that when writing ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motion’s period, as in:
” Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth ; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
*
These intentional misrepresentations are of clearly pathological origin; there is no hope for any change.
Binny,
“Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motions period, . . . “.
You consulted your spirit guide to establish this, did you?
You see, if you apply Newton’s Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earth’s COG, and thus the surface.
Maybe you need to consult your spirit guide once more – is Newton’s cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?
You really are an obsessed reality denying GHE cultist, aren’t you?
As always: Flynnson’s aggressive, irrelevant blathering.
I repeat for the deranged Flynnson what Newton himself wrote:
” Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth ; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
How is it possible to keep so dûmb, so stubbôrn, so opinîonated, so stûpid?
Flynnson is the ultimate example of a person who pathologically denîes everything he rejects (perhaps he doesn’t even know why).
Binny,
The Sun is not the Moon. The Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth. Your comment doesn’t mention the Moon at all, in quoting Newton.
Again, then –
Binny,
“Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motions period, . . . “.
You consulted your spirit guide to establish this, did you?
You see, if you apply Newtons Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earths COG, and thus the surface.
Maybe you need to consult your spirit guide once more is Newtons cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?
You really are an obsessed reality denying GHE cultist, arent you?
Flynnson
You are such an aggressive, incompetent blatherer.
Binny,
The Sun is not the Moon. The Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth. Your comment doesnt mention the Moon at all, in quoting Newton.
Again, then
Binny,
“Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motions period, . . . “.
You consulted your spirit guide to establish this, did you?
You see, if you apply Newtons Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earths COG, and thus the surface.
Maybe you need to consult your spirit guide once more is Newtons cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?
You really are an obsessed reality denying GHE cultist, arent you?
Flynnson
" Your comment doesn’t mention the Moon at all, in quoting Newton. "
This is the ultimate proof of your mix of aggressiveness and incompetence.
Of course it didn't mention the Moon, you stubborn idîot!
My comment mentioned what you are unable to grasp, namely the difference between observing or calculating the period of a motion
– with respect to our Earth
– with respect to a very distant point, e.g. a star.
Why are you so incredibly ignorant, Flynnson?
Binny,
Yes, the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Moon orbits the Earth.
Obviously, observing anything at all in respect of the Sun, is quite different to observing the same thing in respect of the Moon.
But anyway –
Binny,
“Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motions period, . . . “.
You consulted your spirit guide to establish this, did you?
You see, if you apply Newtons Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earths COG, and thus the surface.
Maybe you need to consult your spirit guide once more. Is Newtons cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?
You really are an obsessed reality denying GHE cultist, arent you?
Flynnson #3
You can repeat your arrogant, useless trash hundred times.
That won’t change anything in the degree of your incompetence and stûpidity.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
You can repeat your arrogant, unseless trash hundred times.
That won’t change anything in the degree of your incompetence and stûpidity.
Binny,
“Newton of course did not mean the motion, but the motions period, . . . “.
You consulted your spirit guide to establish this, did you?
You see, if you apply Newtons Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earths COG, and thus the surface.
Maybe you need to consult your spirit guide once more. Is Newtons cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?
You really are an obsessed reality denying GHE cultist, arent you?
Swenson,
“Is Newtons cannonball spinning about an interior axis, and if so, what forces caused it to do so?”
Since the cannonball was attached to the Earth before being fired, and since the Earth is spinning on its axis, of course the cannonball is spinning when fired, due to Newton’s first law of motion.
No force necessary due again to Newton’s laws.
I hear squawking.
Bumbling bobby,
So a cannonball is spinning end over end when in their air, but not when it is lying on the ground?
Spinning about an interior axis, dummy – not rotating about the Earth’s COG!
Pay yourself $50 dollars, and convince yourself that you are $50 better off.
Don’t you understand anything?
“if you apply Newtons Laws to a non-spinning object, such as a cannonball fired from a smooth bore cannon with sufficient speed to orbit the Earth, with no torque applied to the ball, you will find a round object presenting one face perpetually to the Earths COG, and thus the surface.”
No, you won’t.
Consider first firing that cannon far from any planet or star or moon. Suppose we aim it at the North Star. The cannon ball will move in a straight line and the same face of the cannon ball will be always toward the North Star. No torques applied while firing, and no torques applied after firing. No rotation before firing and no rotation after firing. I assume everyone agrees.
Now take the cannon to earth. Lets assume the equator and no air. Aim horizontally at the North Star. Gravity applies no torque about the center of mass. Thus the cannon ball has no angular acceleration about its CoM and keep the same face toward the North Star.
Since you seem to disagree, what do you think causes a torque about the CoM to start the cannon ball rotating so that different faces are toward the North Star?
Interesting, so an object can rotate on its own internal axis and still keep the same face orientated towards a distant object.
Some heads are going to explode.
Tim Folkerts, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
As some of you struggle to correctly describe the orbital motion of the moon, I have a trivia question. The moon has 2% of earth’s volume and 1.2% of earth’s mass, but 16% of earth’s gravitational acceleration. Why?
Extra Credit:
If there was a body of liquid water on the moon, would it have tides? Would they be different than earth?
Because the Moon is smaller.
The Moon would have tides, due to the Sun, but not due to the Earth, if there were liquid water on the Moon.
So they would be different than Earth, different sizes and different schedules.
Okay, size matters, but why is it a factor of 8?
Tim S,
Use the equation a=G*m/R^2 for both the Earth and the Moon.
The first ones free, next physics lesson is 50 bucks.
Tim S,
If you add up the total value of bobdroege’s opinions, and add $5 cash, you would have enough to buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Anybody silly enough to value bobdroege’s opinion is likely to regret it.
Bumbling bobby even grumbled once because he discovered that it’s pretty easy for me to ask him a simple question – and he can’t find the answer on the internet!
His knowledge is about that of a slightly dim 12 year old, as you will see from the answers to your questions, if he can’t copy and paste from the internet, he is well and truly buggered!
That is the correct equation, and the value for R on the moon is about 27% of the value for the earth.
I never grumble.
Tim S, bobdroege
” Use the equation a=G*m/R^2… ”
This eq can’t be correct cuz it represents the gravitational acceleration, but not the tidal acceleration:
– it takes into account the distance between the body causing the acceleration and the body experiencing it, but not the latter’s radius;
– while gravitational acceleration obeys to the inverse square principle, tidal accelerations obey to the inverse cube principle.
This is very good explained in the Wiki page about tidal forces showing how they evolve through differential calculus out of gravitational forces.
Thus, the correct equation is a=G*m*2r/d^3.
According to this equation, Earth’s tidal acceleration exerted on the Moon is ~ 22 times higher than its inverse.
Bumbling bobby,
“So they would be different than Earth, different sizes and different schedules.”
You can’t actually put numbers to your 12 year old quality assumptions, can you?
Or do you have a mental age of 12? Am I overestimating? Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – provide some facts to back up your position, if you wouldnt mind.
Carry on.
I could, but who is paying?
Bumbling bobby,
in other words, you can’t.
Fair enough.
Swenson,
You want your money for nothing and your chicks for free?
Bumbling bobby,
in other words, you cant.
Fair enough.
Mike Flynn,
You’re the one who cant.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
I’ll give you one for free.
If there were tides on the Moon, they would be about 7 days apart.
Bumbling bobby,
If my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle.
Nobody values your opinion – even if you give it away! How sad is that!
bobdroege
” The Moon would have tides, due to the Sun, but not due to the Earth… ”
Ooops?! That I don’t understand.
Is it suddenly wrong to say that the Earth exerts tidal effects on the Moon, manifested by the deformation of its crust?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Ooops?! That I dont understand.”
Why? What do you need help with?
You have only to ask – if not me, try the internet. If the internet fails you, you could always appeal to the authority of bobdroege!
The followup to the tide question is complex. Oceans have tides because they are large. Most lakes do not have any noticeable tide action. The Great Lakes have very minor tides.
Good point, Tim. The tidal bulge mid-ocean is only about 1 metre. It takes a larger mass of water for the lunar attraction to raise the oceans.
Kann uns denn verdammt nochmal keiner von diesem Swenson-Arschloch befreien?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
The footnote on this is that the smaller value for the rate of acceleration of gravity on the moon could possibly be used to debunk claims that the moon videos were filmed in the desert somewhere at night or a film studio. The Astronauts appear to be floating at times when they jump or walk because they actually are descending back to the moon at a slower rate than on earth.
I think I am done here. Carry on.
OK, nice try
But they would say the film was put in slow motion to model the effects of lunar gravity.
Not that I would deny that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
Still my favorite knock knock joke.
Do you want to hear it, I can do it for kids, or the adult Aristocrats version.
In fairness, TS might be more of an obscure utility stock guy than a dividend aristocrat.
bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Arkady keeps digging himself holes, and then scrabbles furiously, digging them deeper!
I wrote “if you heat an object like the atmosphere it will cool again”.
A can’t find anything to dispute, but he is unhappy anyway
He tries to be clever, and says –
“I fixed it for you:
“if you heat an object like the atmosphere, it will cool again,” but faster due to the Planck Feedback.”
He believes that a “Planck Feedbackt” (apparently a euphemism for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law), results in faster cooling than is found by the application of normal physical laws. This from a US University course “The Planck Feedback is a restatement of one of the universal radiation laws, and simply says the higher the temperature of an object, the more energy it radiates.” Well, gee, ordinary physical laws still apply!
Of course, the “Planck Feedback” is nowhere to be found in any reputable physics course, because it is just GHE cultists like you redefining terms trying to appear intelligent.
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Demonstrate that the Planck Feedback is not just a renaming of the Stefan Boltzmann Law. Only joking, you cant! That’s because you live in a fantasy world. Sad, really.
What does it feel like to be a loser?
There is only one loser here, hand his (nick)name is… Swenson, aka Mike Flynn.
Instead of superficially, aggressively blathering, he might learn a bit:
https://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html
but I’m afraid Flynnson prefers to spout his eternal aggressiveness.
Binny,
Don’t you read your silly links? I’ll help you out with a quote –
“Every climate model has a Planck feedback
The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”
A warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet! And you thought that was novel?
There is even a physical law describing the phenomenon – it’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
You may have also noticed that “a warm planet radiates more to space . . . “. To space – where the energy leaves the Earth system. Disappears. Gone. Vanished. Kaput!
Loser. Even your own appeal to authority disowns you. At least you dont need my help to look completely incompetent.
Try harder next time.
Flynnson
You are such an aggressive, incompetent blatherer.
Binny,
Dont you read your silly links? Ill help you out with a quote
“Every climate model has a Planck feedback
The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”
A warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet! And you thought that was novel?
There is even a physical law describing the phenomenon its called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
You may have also noticed that “a warm planet radiates more to space . . . . To space where the energy leaves the Earth system. Disappears. Gone. Vanished. Kaput!
Loser. Even your own appeal to authority disowns you. At least you dont need my help to look completely incompetent.
Try harder next time.
Swenson,
“You may have also noticed that a warm planet radiates more to space . . . . To space where the energy leaves the Earth system. Disappears. Gone. Vanished. Kaput!”
You might want to check that theory against observations Chief.
The amount of energy radiated to space depends more on the albedo and the amount of energy abzorbed, the surface temperature is not a good predictor.
“so the absorbed solar energy by Venus is less than that for Earth.”
I found this on the internet.
Venus is two and a half times as hot as the Earth, but radiates less energy to space.
You know the energy leaving balance the energy arriving or there has to be a change in temperature.
Bereft bobby,
GHE cultists like Binny believe in “Planck Feedback” –
“Every climate model has a Planck feedback
The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”
If you don’t believe in the Planck Feedback, good for you
The rate of energy lost to space by the Earth amounts to about 44 TW. Clouds, albedo, sunlight, do not affect this loss in any way you can quantify, do they?
You quoted someone else saying “so the absorbed solar energy by Venus is less than that for Earth.” Don’t complain to me about what someone else said – not my problem. I haven’t mentioned Venus. Why should I?
You finished up by writing –
“I found this on the internet.
Venus is two and a half times as hot as the Earth, but radiates less energy to space.
You know the energy leaving balance the energy arriving or there has to be a change in temperature.”
Bizarre. simply bizarre. What are you babbling about?
Swenson,
“The rate of energy lost to space by the Earth amounts to about 44 TW.”
That’s just your opinion and it’s wrong.
The Earth is actually receiving 460 TW more than it is getting.
“Multiple types of measurements and observations show a warming imbalance since at least year 1970.[4][5] The rate of heating from this human-caused event is without precedent.[6]: 54 The main origin of changes in the Earth’s energy is from human-induced changes in the composition of the atmosphere.[1] During 2005 to 2019 the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) averaged about 460 TW or globally 0.90 0.15 W per m2.[1]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Bumbling bobby,
From your reference –
“The geothermal heat flow from the Earth’s interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts (TW)”
OK, I only said 44 TW. My bad. When I said the Earth was longing 44 TW, you wrote –
“Thats just your opinion and its wrong.” According to your authority, it’s worse than I thought!
You might be mistakenly thinking that Fourier was wrong, and that during the night, the surface doesnt lose all the heat of the day. That’s probably because you are ignorant, and below average intelligence.
The Earth has cooled. It continues to do so – even your own reference says so!
How pathetic is that? Are you trying to take the Loser of the Year crown away from Willard?
Carry on losing.
Swenson,
You seem to think the amount lost from the surface from the interior 47 TW is the same as the amount actually lost from the atmosphere to space, – 460 TW are the same thing.
IE, the Earth is actually gaining energy, not losing it.
Flynnson
You can repeat your arrogant, useless trash hundred times.
That won’t change anything in the degree of your incompetence and stûpidity.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
The article at Binny’s link simply perpetuates the ignorance of alarmists about feedback. The article starts by describing feedback in a system with an amplifier a la electrical engineering theory. Then they magically conclude…
“We can think of the process here as the entire climate system, which contains many examples of both positive and negative feedback”.
NO, WE CAN’T!!!
The electrical engineering diagram clearly has an amplifier that amplifies the combined feedback and input signals. Without that amplifier, feedback simply won’t work!!! The klown who wrote the lecture simply, does not get that. He seems to think there is some kind of heat amplifier in the atmosphere that operates like a electronics amplifier.
For those not grasping this, an electronic amplifier operates by using a small signal input to control a larger signals output where the output current is supplied by a power supply. The basis of modern amplifiers is the transistor which is designed so that a small current run through its input emitter-base circuit can control a much larger current running through its output emitter-collector output.
Essentially, the transistor is an impedance (resistance) converter which acts something like a variable resistor to control a larger output current with a much smaller input current. By increasing and/or decreasing the input signal using feedback, you can vary the larger output signal.
The point is, the amplification in current is supplied by the power supply but where is such a system in the atmosphere as claimed in the article? Essentially, that system would require some kind of heat amplifier and a heat source from which to draw the extra heat to produce amplification. Not only that, it would require a heat source from which to draw the extra heat.
When Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, tried to explain this feedback he fumbled it completely. Based on his explanation, the feedback produced the amplification and that idea pervades alarmist thinking. It is plain wrong. Feedback cannot produce amplification, it is the amplifier that produces it.
swenson…”The Planck Feedback is a restatement of one of the universal radiation laws, and simply says the higher the temperature of an object, the more energy it radiates. Well, gee, ordinary physical laws still apply!
Of course, the Planck Feedback…”
***
I have been trying to tell that to Ark but he thinks Planck feedback, a silly term coined by alarmists, means something. Newton created his law of cooling long ago and S-B and the Planck thingy are just different ways of stating it.
Newton’s law is mainly for conduction/convection because he knew nothing about radiation and neither did any scientist till 1913, when Bohr put it all together. S-B is another way of stating Newton for radiation even though neither Stefan nor Boltzmann knew anything about radiation per se.
The alarmist klowns today have to make up silly laws to justify their pseudo-science and Ark eats it up in his gullibility. Of course, Binny is right there too, slopping at the trough of ignorance,
Derp 18.
OK?
There will be no shortage of rain and snow in California.
https://i.ibb.co/tYqgwnW/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
More rain in Australia.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/S3DXjxT/archive-7-image.png
ark…”1/ Plancks law…it is not accurate to dismiss it as a mere abstraction”.
***
Planck admitted himself that it is an abstraction. He modeled his law based on imaginary oscillators, with each frequency in the spectrum represented by an oscillator. Not only that, he worked toward an answer that would show a ‘known’ bell-like curve for EM emissions, creating an equation in which the probability of UV frequencies were much lower than mid-visible energy missions.
That was how Planck got around the UV catastrophe based on E = hf. According to that equation, as radiation frequency increases, the intensity of EM moves toward infinity. That was the accepted theory till Planck invented his quantum theory.
—
2/ “Plancks law accurately describes the behavior of thermal radiation and has practical applications in astrophysics, thermodynamics, engineering, etc”.
***
Thermal radiation is an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century when scientists believed that heat flowed through air as heat rays. By using that term you show your ignorance of modern quantum theory in which it is known that heat never leaves a surface, but is dissipated as EM radiates from the surface.
—
3/ “Plancks law explains the empirical fact that a warmer body emits with greater power (Joule/second/m^2) than a cooler body”.
***
More accurately, the S-B equation, which preceded Planck, demonstrates a higher intensity of radiation with higher temperatures. Planck and Boltzmann were buddies and I am sure they collaborated.
Planck’s aim, as I stated above, was to find a solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe. He did it by modelling light frequencies as oscillators then fudging the math to fit the observed properties of light.
To this day, we have no idea what his ‘h’ factor means or whether it has a basis in reality. Claes Johnson proved it mathematically using a more natural means but I won’t hold my breath that any of the dweebs running the science community will take any notice.
Professor Feynman’s message to the deniers on this site, who twist themselves into knots to deny established science without presenting any data, models, or evidence, simply stinky opinions:
If Feynman were alive today, he would have little patience with you reality deniers. He was the one responsible for proving NASA management caused the deaths of the Challenger Shuttle. Cultists don’t like to talk about things like that.
Feynman had no religious zeal for perversion and corruption. His focus was on science and reality.
No data. No models. No evidence. Only stinky opinions.
I’m old enough to remember the last time you presented a model, and how that didn’t go so well for you.
A,
What is the GHE supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Neither?
How hard can it be?
A,
Surely you jest. Tell me, is the GHE supposed to heat the planet, cool the planet,or have no effect at all.
Come on, what does your mythical “established science” knowledge tell you?
You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
Many mistakes here, just since yesterday.
Folkerts, Ent, and Ark remain confused about the bogus “240 W/m^2”. As CV reminds us, the 240 W/m^2 comes from the imaginary sphere. It has NO meaningful significance to Earth. Any time you see 240 W/m^2, 340 W/m^2, or 255K, know that all values come from the imaginary sphere, and are thus BOGUS.
Then Bindi continues to pull quotes from Newton, out-of-context. Bindi has been told that the context is about how day/night occurs on planets and Moon. Newton was NOT talking about Moon’s REAL axial rotation. He was referring to Moon’s faces changing relative to Sun. Bindi will NEVER get it.
Bumbling bob shows up to get it wrong several times. First, he correctly claims that a cannonball would maintain its angular momentum before it was fired, because it started ATTACHED to Earth. But, he fails to realize the spinning cannonball would show all faces to Earth as it orbited. An orbiting body with spin will show all faces to the host. Then, he gets confused about “tides” on Moon. A body of water on Moon would NOT have a tide. Earth’s oceans have tides due to gravity (Moon’s pull) AND Earth’s spin. Moon does not have spin, so no tides. Unable to stop spouting nonsense, bob goes on to try to compare Venus to Earth!
That’s why this is so much fun.
The Earth has tides due both to the gravity of the Sun and the Moon.
That’s why you never got your minor in physics.
The Moon spins relative to the Sun, and relative to the Earth.
Someone with a minor in physics would get that.
I didn’t say Sun had no effect, bob. Quit throwing crap against the wall.
Sun tide is so much weaker we can only notice it when Moon and Sun line up. Look up “spring” and “neap” tides.
Moon does NOT spin relative to Earth. We would see that if it did.
I do not expect children to understand any of this. So I won’t respond to any more childishness.
The tides due to the Sun are about half as large as tides from the Moon, so yeah, so much weaker.
So the Sun would have tidal effects on the Moon.
We, at least the smarter ones amongst us, do notice that the Moon is spinning, if it wasn’t we would see all sides from the Earth.
I compared Venus to the Earth to show that even though the two planets get about the same energy from the Sun due to different albedos, one is about two and one half times hotter, and that is due to what now child.
Maybe you can find an adult to help you, perhaps one with more than a passing acquaintance with physics.
“I compared Venus to the Earth to show that even though the two planets get about the same energy from the Sun due to different albedos, one is about two and one half times hotter, and that is due to what now child.”
https://science.nasa.gov/mercury/facts/
“Despite its proximity to the Sun, Mercury is not the hottest planet in our solar system – that title belongs to nearby Venus, thanks to its dense atmosphere.”
Tell me more, tell me more.
No wait, I’ll listen to NASA, since you opened the door and let them in.
“Although it’s similar in structure and size to Earth, Venus has a thick atmosphere that traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, making it the hottest planet in our solar system.”
https://science.nasa.gov/venus/
I just think it’s funny that NASA let that one slip through the net on the Mercury page. They accidentally went with what used to be the accepted wisdom for why Venus is hotter before the GHE crew smeared themselves all over everything.
No, they just did not give a complete answer on the Mercury page.
bob is a perverter of science and truth. That’s why I seldom waste time with him.
He always avoids the main issues and dwells on nonsense. With Venus, he neglects the fact that its surface is extremely hot due to volcanic action. Large portions are even flowing lava.
And he keeps claiming I haven’t studied physics! He’s only trying to get me to use the “L-word”. I’ll merely point out that he has no regard for the truth.
Or maybe that was the complete answer:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/functionofmass.pdf
Energy and Environment?
Not an unbiased source Dr Empty.
Nice to know that Venus’ atmophere is not dry.
“And he keeps claiming I havent studied physics!”
Never claimed that, I was only making fun of your claim to have almost a minor in physics.
And you get the Moon rotation issue wrong, as the Moon does have angular momentum, due to its orbit as well as its rotation.
Attack da sauce…
DREMTPY,
Here is a big mistake from the paper you are so fond of.
“Since no assumptions have been made concerning the gases except that they are ideal, the statement is proven valid.”
The atmosphere of Venus is not an ideal gas.
Sorry for your loss.
It’s hard to know sometimes if bob is being serious or not…
If an assumption in a peer reviewed paper is found to be false…
Your mileage may vary
Of course I am being serious.
Or are you not aware of the limitations of the Ideal Gas Law.
Maybe google van der Waals, since you are obviously not a Chemist, though a Chemist over on your side of the pond isn’t what it is over here.
bob, there are various simplifying assumptions made by the author for his model atmosphere. That’s because he’s only trying to get across a very basic principle. It’s not a "mistake" from the paper…
Blundering bobby,
You are a nitwit. The Earth has cooled. I know you refuse to accept that the Earth’s surface was initially molten, which is why I call you a nitwit.
You cannot even say what the GHE is supposed to do. Heat the planet? Cool the planet? When. How much? Why?
That’s why others may consider you to be ignorant, gullible, and having below average intelligence. They will obviously take their own views, and I would not be surprised to find that their views accord with mine.
Swenson,
Let’s have your evidence that the Earth was molten when it formed.
Maybe it became molten later, when a large planet collided with the young Earth.
Did the core become molten too, or did it stay solid like it is now?
Blundering bob,
If you want to believe the Earth’s surface was never molten, good for you! You might well be below average intelligence, ignorant, and gullible, but you are free to believe what you like.
You still havent managed to describe the GHE in any useful way, nor even say what its effect is supposed to be!
Here’s your latest effort to describe the GHE-
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
You really are not very bright, are you?
By the way, bobby, as you seem to accept NASA as an authority, here’s a quote about the early Earth –
“it is logical to assume that the earth was completely molten, i.e. a “magma ocean” at one time early in its history.”
If you have any comments, please address them to NASA. The value of your opinions to me is zero.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I’ll note that quote doesn’t say the Earth formed in a molten state.
it is logical to assume that the earth was completely molten, i.e. a magma ocean at one time early in its history.
Early in its history does not mean it formed that way.
Anyway the core is still solid.
By the way, bobby, as you seem to accept NASA as an authority, heres a quote about the early Earth
“it is logical to assume that the earth was completely molten, i.e. a magma ocean at one time early in its history.”
If you have any comments, please address them to NASA. The value of your opinions to me is zero.
Carry on.
Swenson,
You seem to think formed and early in its history mean the same thing.
You know a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Here is a typical tide chart. The 14-day changes in tides (due to the sun) are quite distinct and quite obvious.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/system/charts-png/30d/Key-West-Florida.png
When the Sun’s tides are fighting the moon’s tides, high tide and low tide are about 0.3 m apart.
When the Sun’s tides are aiding the moon’s tides, high tide and low tide are about 0.6 m apart. About 2x as large.
Every day, the sun’s influence changes the tides.
Here is a typical tide chart. The 14-day changes in tides (due to the sun) are quite distinct and quite obvious.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/system/charts-png/30d/Key-West-Florida.png
When the Sun’s tides are fighting the moon’s tides, high tide and low tide are about 0.3 m apart.
When the Sun’s tides are aiding the moon’s tides, high tide and low tide are about 0.6 m apart. About 2x as large.
Every day, the sun’s influence changes the tides. And not just a small amount.
tim f…”Every day, the suns influence changes the tides. And not just a small amount”.
***
Due to the difference in distance between Moon and Earth and Sun and Earth, the solar gravitational forces has much less effect than the Moon. However, solar gravity is obviously enough to keep Earth and 8 other major planets in orbit plus assorted space junk.
Even at that, the solar and lunar gravity fields are only enough to raise the oceans about 1 metre at mid-ocean tidal bulge. The coastal tidal measurement is larger because it is based on the entire ocean being drawn up 1 metre and drawing coastal waters outwardly, leaving coastal regions at various tidal depths.
Therefore, geography plays a large role in tidal variations.
Even the ‘solid’ body of the Earth is distorted by the gravity of the Moon and the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
Water is subject to even more movement. Tidal basins have their own periods which effects how much actual movement is seen at any one place and time.
bobdroege says:
The Moon spins relative to the Sun, and relative to the Earth.
Someone with a minor in physics would get that.
———————
bob the moon does not spin relative to earth. I take it you skipped any kind of minor in physics. . .or maybe it was logic you skipped.
Bill,
Whether or not the Moon spins has nothing to do with my level of education, actually it was figured out before any of us were born.
Just declaring it from your own authority, or lack of it, don’t confront me.
Cassini figured it out long ago, and he was just an astrologer.
Funny how an astrologer can get the right answer that you can’t.
Cassini proved the moon’s orbit was the equivalent of a rotation mathematically. And here you are claiming he didn’t. Where is your proof?
Not so fast.
Try this
“the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth;”
Maybe you could show his proof that the Moon’s orbit is a rotation?
It’s your claim, you need to support it before I get the chance to tear it apart.
bumbling bobby,
I’m unaware where Cassini says “the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth” when viewed from within the Moon’s orbit.
Of course, viewed from outside the Moon’s orbit (Newton’s “fixed stars”) all sides of the moon are presented.
Maybe you could provide a quote showing Cassini’s viewpoint. Obviously, the observer’s position shows different “rotations”.
Swenson,
I already quoted Cassini’s laws, maybe he didn’t write them in modern English like I did but
” the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth;”
Which is true no matter what viewpoint you have.
As we observe the Galilean satellites doing the same as the Moon, that is, rotate around it’s axis in the same amount of time it takes to revolve around the planet.
bumbling bobby,
Im unaware where Cassini says the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth when viewed from within the Moons orbit.
Of course, viewed from outside the Moons orbit (Newtons fixed stars) all sides of the moon are presented.
Maybe you could provide a quote showing Cassinis viewpoint. Obviously, the observers position shows different “rotations”.
In any case, the Moon is simply falling towards the Earth. We see the bottom, as it falls.
Maybe this non Cassini quote is more your speed Swenson
“I’m not aware of too many things, I know what I know if you know what I mean”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“the 240 W/m^2 comes from the imaginary sphere.”
No, it comes from the earth as as whole. The fact that earth’s radiation comes in varying amount from varying longitudes, latitudes, and altitudes does not diminish the reality of the radiation.
Where in your imagination is that imaginary 240 W/m^2 imagined to occur, Folkerts?
Hey Puffman,
Riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576729
Aren’t you supposed to be busy?
Willard, please stop trolling.
240 W/m^2 occurs (on average) at the “top of the atmosphere”. It is the cumulative effect of radiation from the surface and from the atmosphere. Satellites orbiting the earth routinely measure this flux by looking down from above the atmosphere.
Your cult uses different altitudes for this imaginary “top of the atmosphere”, Folkerts.
What imaginary altitude do you imagine?
(Hint: A REAL “top of atmosphere” would have a REAL altitude.)
“Satellites orbiting the earth routinely measure this flux by looking down from above the atmosphere.”
–
Do satellites also rotate about their own axis?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hey, Puffman –
Who wrote this?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim,
You really are gullible, aren’t you?
There is no instrumentation on Earth capable of measuring the Earth’s heat loss rate from space.
Ground based measurements indicate the Earth is cooling – very slowly – losing energy at the rate of about 44TW. More energy out than in, you see.
This should penetrate the reality rejecting brains of the most fanatical GHE cultists, but of course it doesn’t. You can’t even clearly describe what effect the GHE is supposed to have, in any way that can be confirmed by rigorous, repeatable experiments, can you?
That’s why you have to rely on pseudo-science and fantasy.
No, Tim, there is more likely to be a Santa Claus, than a GHE. At least Santa Claus can be described – portly, jolly gent, big white beard, lives at the North Pole, makes lists and checks them twice.
As for the pseudo-scientific GHE . . .
“Do satellites also rotate about their own axis?”
Yes.
Some people refuse to believe the elefant in the room even after it sits on them.
AGW climate change narrative is nothing but a heap of elefant manure.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In aerospace engineering, spin stabilization is a method of stabilizing a satellite or launch vehicle by means of spin, i.e. rotation along the longitudinal axis. The concept originates from conservation of angular momentum as applied to ballistics, where the spin is commonly obtained by means of rifling. For most satellite applications this approach has been superseded by three-axis stabilization.
[…]
Despinning can be achieved by various techniques, including yo-yo de-spin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_stabilization
Some people on this page are nothing but elefant manure spreaders.
Wondering Wee Willy,
It’s a matter of observation that the Moon doesn’t exhibit “rotation along the longitudinal axis”.
Otherwise, we woukd be able to see all of the Moon, not just one face!
Your appeal to authority has turned on you, yet again!
Are you trying for the ” Loser of the Year” award? You have my vote.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
He can’t see all the moon; only one side, therefore, according to him, the moon doesn’t rotate.
He must think he is at the center of the universe.
What a load of elefant manure.
Ken,
You wrote –
“He cant see all the moon; only one side, therefore, according to him, the moon doesnt rotate.”
According to Newton, also, apparently. He pointed out that the Moon falls continuously towards the Earth, and we see only the “botton” of the falling Moon!
However, from a great distance (the fixed stars), the Moon would appear to rotate, all sides being visible over a period. So yes, according to me, the Moon is falling – straight down. No rotation.
You don’t have to agree, of course. You can believe that the Moon is pushed around its orbit by celestial beings, if you wish. I don’t care.
Mike Flynn,
One had to be a Newton to notice that the Moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn’t fall.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
How does rifling in a gun barrel preserve angular momentum? It is put in the barrel to produce angular spin on the bullet not to conserve angular momentum.
Spin stabilization on a satellite is an entirely different concept. You don’t want a satellite to spin if its receiving and transmitting antennas must remain facing Earth. They use gyros to help stop spin, not to create it. However, that spin would cause all faces of the sat to face Earth with the antennas pointing in the wrong direction much of the time.
“Tell me, is the GHE supposed to heat the planet, cool the planet,or have no effect at all.”
1/ Take your cursor and place it at the start of the above sentence.
2/ Press and hold left mouse button.
3/ Highlight all text to the end of the sentence.
4/ Release left mouse button.
5/ Click right mouse button.
6/ Left click on Search Google for “Tell me, is the…”
7/ Got to results window.
8/ Read About 5,770,000 results (0.46 seconds)
No need to thank me.
A,
So you can’t (or won’t) say, then?
Why am I not surprised?
You do accept that the surface has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature, I hope.
Cooled. Maybe your searching the internet didn’t provide any answers which reflected reality, so you thought you would try to get me to waste my time.
Bad luck for you. The internet doesn’t provide any believable answers, just repeating the same tired nonsense over and over, hoping that people will just assume that a GHE is somehow making the planet hotter!
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You and your fellow donkeys can’t even provide any theory about anything at all to do with any supposed “Greenhouse Effect”!
Look it up, dummy. No GHE, no “forcings” (another bizarre attempt to look intelligent), and climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.
Try harder next time. A few facts might help.
Ayuh, the earth has been slowly cooling, never warming, since the dawn of time.
Wait, what is that smell? More elefant manure. You’re the head mahout and must be held responsible.
Fact. Earth is in energy equilibrium. The same amount of energy going into earth comes out from earth. Its not cooling or warming in any significant way at all.
Ken,
Losing about 44 TW is not exactly a ringing endorsement of energy equilibrium. Of course the rate of cooling is slow – currently about one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Slow cooling is not heating, if you are trying to insinuate that a GHE is heating the planet.
You wrote –
“Ayuh, the earth has been slowly cooling, never warming, since the dawn of time.”
At least you agree with me.
You also wrote “The same amount of energy going into earth comes out from earth.” Yes, if you are only considering sunlight. Fourier wrote that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day. Oh, of course, he added “plus a part of that which is peculiar to itself”. Internal heat. Not surprising, considering that more than 99% of the Earth’s matter is hot enough to glow!
What is it you are trying to say?
Mike Flynn,
Your body is wasting at least 100 calories every day with your braying. Yet you are obese.
Why is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I am trying to say that you are like an elefant, fiery eyed and terrible; a constipated elefant, full of elefant manure.
Oh 44 TW? That’s your bet for cooling?
I raise you 120,000 TW.
We’ve been over this Mike.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1573629
The sun provides 120,000 TW to the Earth, so it is not cooling from your piddly 44 TW!
No Nate Mike (whoever that is) is saying the earth is receiving 120,000TW and at true natural climate variation time length periods based upon current heat transfer rates loses to space 120,044TW. That is a fact, don’t you agree?
Nah, he ignored the sun.
And with a 0.9 W imbalance, the Earth is gaining ~ 450 TW.
And with a 0.9 W/m^2 imbalance, the Earth is gaining ~ 450 TW.
But Nate we already proved that .9 number has not been observed. Our system of measuring incoming vs outgoing isn’t near enough accurate to come up with such a number.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/on-the-ground-measurements-overestimate-earths-albedo
So try again. Its getting tiresome of you just ignoring science.
“But Nate we already proved that .9 number has not been observed. ”
Nope.
The evidence for it from the ocean heat content rise is strong, and the correlation to the TOA flux imbalance is further confirmation.
LOL! I already showed you a link that put just the albedo estimate only within an estimated 5watts. And beyond that there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the solar constant varying from 1361 to 1372 watts and currently at 1369watts. Then when you look at LW out accuracy it just as bad because besides small instrument error (e.g. inconsistencies between two different systems), natural climate variation causes up to 5 watt global variation month over month.
Then ocean temperature monitoring only covers 50% of the ocean and low sea ice suggests an acceleration of ocean bottom cooling, not warming.
So I certainly don’t want to begrudge playing with these toys as the only way to make them better is to constantly work with them. But I have to draw the line at estimating .9w/m2 out of that hodgepodge. I certainly can only see that a reason to lie or ignorance to buy into the idea it has any relevance other than to explain the lack of warming seen so far. Dr. Curry and many others are questioning why we haven’t adjusted our expectations of warming vs adjusting the observations.
If it were a real audit either you would have to do that or come up with the evidence that you refuse to provide.
Ark now preaches that Google is the wellspring of truth in science.
More from trôll Clint R:
” Then Bindi continues to pull quotes from Newton, out-of-context.
Bindi has been told that the context is about how day/night occurs on planets and Moon.
Newton was NOT talking about Moons REAL axial rotation.
He was referring to Moons faces changing relative to Sun. Bindi will NEVER get it. ”
**
Always the same, unproven, gut feeling based nonsense written by the trôll Clint R, who never has been able to show us any real scientific explanation published anywhere by any real scientist.
*
I posted the entire text of Newton’s Proposition XVII, nothing out of context, Clint R, and you perfectly know that.
Your ‘day/night’ blah blah is based on your lack of scientific education, and on nothing else.
**
2. ” A body of water on Moon would NOT have a tide. Earths oceans have tides due to gravity (Moons pull) AND Earths spin. Moon does not have spin, so no tides. ”
This also is 100% based on Clint R’s belief – a belief he shares with Robertson, DREMT, the Hunter boy and Flynnson – together with a few persons automatically believing anything what these geniuses endlessly post on this blog.
*
Clint R does not know anything about tides, tidal force and tidal acceleration.
Tides do not have anything to do with orbits let alone with spins.
A comet traveling on a giant ellipse around the Sun apparently will move near Earth on a straight line, but nonetheless will be subject to Earth’s gravitational force leading to a measurable tidal acceleration on the comet’s surface and hence to deformations of its body, if it is small enough.
*
The very best is that Earth’s tidal effects on the Moon result in tiny irregularities in the lunar spin which nowadays can be detected and evaluated by using LLR data, just like are tiny motions of the lunar core.
*
But of course: all this doesn’t exist for Clint R – because he automatically rejects anything he doesn’t understand and says under all circumstances:
” This ain’t science! ”
Imagine! So-called scientists really believing in LLR photon returns from retro-reflectors on the Moon! Incredible!
Binny,
You wrote –
“Imagine! So-called scientists really believing in LLR photon returns from retro-reflectors on the Moon! Incredible!”
Who are these “scientists” who do not believe light can be reflected?
Just how gullible are you?
Idîot.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Again and again, the Hunter boy posts his gut feeling based pseûdo-scîence – of course ALWAYS without any source backing it up:
” Cassini proved the moon’s orbit was the equivalent of a rotation mathematically. ”
*
Where does the Hunter boy have that nonsense from?
Cassini NEVER ‘proved’ anything the like. NEVER.
*
Cassini’s very intelligent evaluation of Moon’s spin about its axis had, this is clearly admitted, a major drawback: he published only a few results of his work, a task which was left later on to his son.
But everyone can look at the real sources of what Cassini did, for example in the introduction of Lagrange’s treatise, in which he explains the causes of the Moon’s apparent optical libration by Moon’s rotation around its polar axis.
*
I translated years ago his treatise’s introduction, where you can read:
” It is a long-recognized phenomenon that the Moon always presents us the same face; but it is only since the invention of the glasses that we have been able to determine the laws of libration, that is to
say of those swayings that the Moon seems to make around its center, and by which, during each month, it alternately hides and reveals us, towards its edges, some of its surface.
Galilee is the first to have observed the libration, but he appears to have known only a part of it, that which is perpendicular to the ecliptic, and which is called libration in latitude.
Hevelius then discovered the libration in longitude; but it was reserved for Dominique Cassini to give a general and complete explanation of this phenomenon.
He found that all appearances of libration could be satisfied, assuming:
1) that the Moon turns uniformly around an axis whose poles, fixed on its surface, are constantly raised on the ecliptic of 87 ° 30 ‘, and on the plane of the orbit, of 82 ° 30’, and always be on a large circle of the globe of the Moon, parallel to the great circle which passes through the poles of the orbit and those of the ecliptic;
2) that the rotation of this Planet around its axis ends after 25 days and 5 hours, by a period equal to that of the return of the Moon at the node of its orbit with the ecliptic.
*
This theory only appeared after Cassini’s death. His son Jacques Cassini gave it, in 1721, in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, but without any detail of the observations which had
served to establish it. ”
*
This is, as opposed to the Hunter boy’s endlessly repeated, unproven allegations, something 100% verifiable.
Source of the translation:
http://tinyurl.com/ye5ay9hm
The link to the French source of Lagrange’s treatise in in the translation.
*
But this is not all what Lagrange wrote about his predecessors’ work; it goes further on with this:
*
” It therefore needed to be verified by new observations, and the perfection it still lacked, it received from the late Tobie Mayer.
This astronomer published in 1750, in the Kosmologische Nachrichten of Nuremberg, the first part of a Treatise on the rotation of the Moon and the apparent movement of its spots, intended to serve as a basis for a new Selenography.
It must be regretted that the author did not finish it [ note: Mayer died before finishing the work ]; but what he leaves us with can be regarded as a complete book on the astronomical theory of libration.
By a series of observations of several spots of the Moon, made with care during the years 1748 and 1749, and calculated with all the precision and elegance that may be desired, Mayer found
– that the plan of the lunar equator is inclined on the level of the ecliptic of 1 degree and 29 minutes,
– that the section of these planes is always nearly parallel to the line of the mean nodes of the orbit of the Moon, so that the plane of the ecliptic falls between the two planes of the equator and the
orbit of the Moon, and
– that the Moon turns around the axis of its equator, from west to east, so that every point of this equator returns to the lunar equinoxial point in a time precisely equal to that in which the Moon
returns to the node by its average movement, that is to say in the lapse time of a draconitic month, which is, as we know, 27 days 5 hours 6 minutes 56 seconds long. ”
**
Yeah. That’s something basically different from the Hunter boy’s eternal, gut feeling based pseûdo-scîence.
Binny,
You do realise that the draconitic month is different to the sidereal month, which is different to yet another time period called a “month”.
Which one represents the time taken for the Moon to “rotate” once only?
Or does the Moon’s rotational period vary from month to month?
Does it matter if you still can’t say what the GHE is supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Neither?
Keep babbling about anything except the GHE. It may divert attention away from your bizarre GHE cultist behaviour.
” You do realise that the draconitic month is different to the sidereal month, which is different to yet another time period called a ‘month’. ”
Of course I do realise this, you arrogant and ignorant dmbss.
I wouldn’t wonder if you had to first have a look at Wikipedia in order to discover for the first time in your life what a draconitic month means anyway!
And what you arrogant and ignorant dmbss don’t know at all is the fact that it doesn’t matter which kind of lunar month you choose for an evaluation of Mayer’s work.
Regardless whether synodic, sidereal or draconitic: all these monthly periods show the very same value for both the lunar orbit and its spin.
Like Robertson, Clint R and the other science deners, you blather and babble all the time like a teethless grandpa and ignore all what you could have learned instead.
Look at the end of Mayer’s treatise, blathering and babbling grandpa, and try to understand!
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
Ooooh! It’s in German… please help.
On page 168 of the treatise you see that Mayer computed both the Moon’s sidereal and synodic rotation periods.
He could have computed the draconitic (or nodical), the tropical and the animalistic rotation periods as well, but… why?
binny…” Cassini proved the moons orbit was the equivalent of a rotation mathematically. ”
***
Obviously, Cassini as an astronomer, more likely an astrologer, did not understand the mechanics of orbital motion. Newton did, and he stated…
1)the Moon moves with linear motion…
2)Earth’s gravitational field bends the linear motion into a curvilinear motion…
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth…
Despite the erroneous claims of Cassini et al, the Master Scientist, Newton, did not cover anything in detail about a rotating Moon. In fact, based on his three statements above, the only logical conclusion is that he did not think the Moon rotated on a local axis.
—-
“…what he leaves us with can be regarded as a complete book on the astronomical theory of libration”.
***
You keep confusing libration with rotation. Libration is a reference to a very slight view angle discrepancy from Earth of a few degrees and has nothing to do with a lunar rotation. To some, the Moon appears to be waggling back and forth but a closer look reveal the real explanation. Due entirely to the slightly elliptical orbit, the Moon appears to viewers on Earth from slightly differing angles.
Still no proof that Meyer described a local rotation of the Moon.
I might add to the above re libration that it exist only in an elliptical orbit. If an orbit is purely circular, there can be no libration. Even with an elliptical orbit, the libration disappears at either end of the major axis. That proves libration to be a property of the orbital shape and has nothing to do with a local rotation.
Yep the spinners think alignment is everything. So much orderly. But there is no scientific law that says things need to be orderly.
Cool story, Bordo.
Here is why libration sinks the Moon Dragon cranks’ ship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Here is why libration sinks the Moon Dragon cranks ship:”, followed by –
“In addition to uniform rotation and uniform precession of the equator plane, the Moon has small oscillations of orientation in space about all 3 axes.
What has any of this to do with some ‘Moon Dragon crank’s ship”? Are you quite mad?
Maybe you could try expressing yourself in plain English. Physical librations are well known but their causes are not. Have you some hypotheses to explain all observed physical librations, or are you just trying to look like a donkey?
Don’t waste your time with wiki wee willy, we can help you out with better and more realistic detail here on Roy’s blog.
Librations are not oscillations per se, which are variations about a central point. For example, an oscillation, as opposed to the osculations in which wee willy engages with frogs seated on lily pads down by the river, in an electronic circuit, is a regular change in direction of electrons in a type of circuit.
With a lunar libration, there is no motion to and fro physically by the Moon. The motion is apparent, much like the Sun appearing to move across the sky during daylight. This apparent motion could not appear in a purely circular orbit since it is dependent on the Earth observer’s view angle during certain parts of the lunar orbit. In a purely circular orbit, the view angle would be constant. I am talking here of longitudinal libration but I am sure the other types are the same.
There are two point in an elliptical orbit where the view angles coincide with the purely circular orbit: at apogee and perigee, either end of the major axis. Therefore, libration is related only to the Moon’s position in its orbit.
Yes, Gordo, the Moon’s Libration in Longitude is the result of the Moon rotating while it follows an elliptical orbit. The only way to mathematically describe the apparent side-to-side “motion” is to set the Moon’s rotation at a constant rate of once per orbit with the COM following the elliptical track.
Cool story, Bordo:
Op. Cit.
Or, if you prefer:
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
I love how you defiantly deny the obvious.
Swanson, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Rapid descend back into La Nina conditions
https://youtu.be/JaRT2N5j5mI
For anyone interested in libration of planets within the Solar system, the following is a quote from one of many publications on the subject –
“However, their assessment that “no dynamical mechanism for the observed chaotic behaviour of the Solar System has been clearly demonstrated” seems warranted, at least for the terrestrial planets. Without a clear identification of the source of the chaos it is not possible to use an analytic development, such as was used for the outer planets, to confirm the Lyapunov time and then estimate the timescale for diffusion of the system.”
Planetary librations are covered in the paper.
bob d…”Cassini figured it out long ago, and he was just an astrologer”.
***
Bob, you old seadog, Cassini proved nothing and we have proved in Roy’s blog that he was wrong. We have also proved the translators of Newton were wrong in their inter.pretation of his view on the subject. I think they responded to Cassini’s theory and used generous poetic license when inter.preting the Latin used by Newton.
Tesla disproved Cassini decades ago using an elegant application of kinetic energies. For some reason, NASA missed his proof and proceeded to misrepresent the truth by insisting as did Cassini that the Moon rotates exactly once on a local axis per orbit.
Any proficient scientist would have immediately questioned that conclusion since it appears on the face of it to be far too c.u.t.e that the claimed rotation would exactly match the orbital period, where the orbit varies. Instead of questioning the lame theory they invented a new theory to justify it called tidal locking.
Tesla’s theory is far more robust. It neatly explains why the Moon always faces the Earth while maintaining a constant angular velocity. Cassini’s theory cannot meet those requirements, even if the Moon’s alleged rotation does match the orbital period. Cassini simply could not produce an explanation for how the Moon could rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
And neither can you. The theory of the rotating Moon cannot be explained physically.
It’s the state of least energy, that’s why it’s so common with moons.
The Moon changes its orientation, therefore it must rotate on its axis or it would point the same direction continuously.
Any eighth grader could see that.
only eighth graders who don horseblinders and thus can’t see the moon rotating around the earth. in here we were entertained with such views early on as spinners tried to convince the non-spinners that the moon was rotating on its own axis by erasing the earth in their animated gifs.
The Moon moves in an ellipse, not a circle, therefore it’s not a rotation around an external axis.
The Moon revolves around the Earth.
Use the proper specific terms to describe the Moon’s orbit and spin.
so you are in Nate’s camp and have some other plane motion for ellipses because your daddy defined it as a circle.
Which is it does the moon roll around the earth like a wheel on an axle or does run on a wire like a cable car around the earth?
> have some other plane motion for ellipses because your daddy defined it as a circle.
Gill once again confuses ellipses and circles.
One day he’ll learn that circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
Gill once again confuses ellipses and circles.
One day he’ll learn that circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
Apparently some elderly people, like Bill, revert back to the toddler mentality where they think reality needs to conform to their wishes.
‘It is not my bedtime!’
LOL! Nate thinks ad hominins add to his arguments.
Bill.
“Which is it does the moon roll around the earth like a wheel on an axle or does run on a wire like a cable car around the earth?”
Neither, it revolves around the Earth under the influence of gravity
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob apparently doesn’t know it but he is a non-spinner
Gill gaslights Bob by the telling the joke upside down.
LMAO!
bob sure is a comical one.
It is time to look elsewhere and retool.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
At the same distance from the sun, Earth receives 28% less solar energy (higher Albedo), but Earth rotates
very much faster…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nah. If you keep ignoring the atmosphere you will keep getting the wrong answer.
For example, the temperature of the Moon’s surface can be determined with an IR thermometer from far away.
Not so for the Earth, the IR thermometer measured T from it is much lower than it’s surface temperature.
Nate, please, provide references for the measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures for Moon, and for Earth.
You can look up the numbers. What’s your point?
Nate, you nitwit.
Satellites do measure the temperature of the Earth’s surface, particularly in places where humans only venture occasionally, due to extreme temperature. Measured temperature vary between about 70 C, and -90 C.
GHE believers refuse to measure actual surface temperatures, and claim to be measuring air temperatures above the surface (over about 30% of the surface, the rest being covered by water.)
“GHE believers refuse to measure actual surface temperatures”
No they don’t. That’s stoopid.
How about a reference to where the measurements are of the radiating surface on a global network then Nate?
that seems to be all you do is make outrageous claims and when you try to support them it turns out it proves you wrong. I definitely want to give you the opportunity to do that again.
Nah, I don’t look up evidence for you anymore, Bill. You have made it clear that you will not take it seriously.
Yep the last time you did it didn’t support your claim. I don’t blame you for giving up and deciding you will no longer argue about science with science.
You still haven’t explained why the slowest rotating planet in the Solar System, Venus, has the highest surface temperature.
Ent, did you ask Nate, or me?
You.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/9DdtsPdYGQk
Interesting video from a NOVA documentary which first aired in the US on this day, December 20, 1983. Not bad for 40 years ago.
CO2 concentration in the air was ~340 ppm then. Today it is ~423
ppm.
Quote from the video:
“We believe that there is some suggested evidence now that the atmosphere is indeed warming; the lower atmosphere is indeed warming due to the greenhouse effect.”
Ark, you don’t understand the science yet you’re trying to appear smart. Here’s a hint: Always precede GHE with the word “bogus”. For example, “the bogus GHE can’t warm Earth’s surface”.
You still won’t know anything, but people will believe you’re smart.
Glad to help.
GHE does warm the earth surface. By some 33K.
The big takeaway should be that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not alter the GHE effect because the CO2 spectrum is saturated.
Sorry child but you’ve swallowed the “imaginary sphere” nonsense.
When you grow up maybe you will learn that Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere.
“…adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not alter the GHE effect because the CO2 spectrum is saturated.”
If that were true then, the Earth Energy Imbalance would not have quadrupled from 0.37 W/m^2 in February 2003 to 1.52 W/m^2 in October 2023.
A,
The Earth is losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so. That’s known as cooling.
During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day.
Four and a half billion years of the Sun shining continuously has not stopped the Earth cooling.
Dream on.
“The theory of the rotating Moon cannot be explained physically.”
You can’t explain your non-rotating Moon theory. Every meteorite impact and every mascon creates a torque tending to rotate the Moon away from your special position of “zero angular momentum”.
You need to explain what mechanism keeps the Moon at this special orientation despite all the perturbations.
The rotating Moon theory includes mechanisms to keep the Moon rotating once per orbit, while your theory has nothing.
Ent, meteors wouldn’t result in a cumulative torque. Over time, any affect would cancel out, as meteors would land all over the surface, from all directions.
And, passenger jets don’t fly backward.
Quit throwing crap against the wall and face reality.
That turns out not to be the case. Meteorite impacts delivery maximum momentum to the inner forward facing segment of an orbiting planet’s surface. The result is that impacts spin up a planet in the same direction as its orbit. This is why most of the planets in the solar system orbit anticlockwise and spin anticlockwiseon their axes.
Similarly the Moon and Earth both orbit the Sun anticlockwise and spin anticlockwise.If the Moon were not tidally locked to the Earth you would expect it to spin slightly faster over time.
That turns out not to be the case, Ent. As we know from a simple vector analysis that Moon is NOT spinning.
Why keep throwing nonsense at the wall? Are you that afraid of reality?
Boo!
EM left out expressing his belief that these meteors are actually AI robots that were able to deduce when to balance the meteor impacts so as to not getting the moon to rotate too fast.
EM,
You wrote –
“If the Moon were not tidally locked to the Earth you would expect it to spin slightly faster over time.”
Yes, and if my aunt had testicles, you would expect her to be my uncle!
About as silly as saying you would expect the Earth to be colder if it wasn’t as warm as it is.
Are you sure you meant to say what you said?
"You need to explain what mechanism keeps the Moon at this special orientation despite all the perturbations"
Tidal locking.
Good one, DREMT. Throw their own nonsense back at them.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
How could the Moon be in a spin-orbit lock with the Earth if its spin is completely stopped, like some Moon Dragon cranks suggest?
Easy. Any perturbations which move the moon away from zero spins per orbit, the tidal locking mechanism returns it to zero spins per orbit.
Gaslighting Graham keeps dancing between explanandum and explanans as if nobody was watching.
Here is the bit that kinda undermines the whole idea that the Moon has stopped spinning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It’d be nice to know how those who deny that the Moon has any angular momentum would explain that mechanism.
Easy. If it’s spinning at a rate the "Spinners" would say is above one spin per orbit, then the "Non-Spinners" would describe this as above zero spins per orbit. For both parties, they need the rate of spin to decrease.
Whereas, if it’s spinning at a rate the "Spinners" would say is below one spin per orbit, then the "Non-Spinners" would say that is below zero spins per orbit (which means it has begun to spin in the opposite direction to the orbital motion).
So, whereas in this latter case, the "Spinners" would need to see the rate of spin increase, the "Non-Spinners" would still need to see the rate of spin decrease, however it’s spin that’s in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
Gaslighting Graham first says it’s easy.
Then he goes for some shadowboxing with an if-by-whisky that has nothing to do with the mechanism he is supposed to explain.
And of course he does all that while sidestepping the presence of angular momentum!
The mechanism is the tidal locking mechanism. Presumably you know how that works.
Yes. Tidal locking slow the rotation of a moon until it rotates once in the inertial reference frame for each orbit around its planet. Tidal locking then returns it to that state if perturbed.
You can see that in the Moon’s motion. The same tidal locking that keeps revolution and rotation periods equal is gradually moving the Moon further from the Earth; it’s orbital period is getting longer and it’s rate of rotation is slowing.
Now how can a moon which is not rotating change its rotation rate over time while continuing to not rotate?
Easy. The moon is getting further away from Earth, thus the orbital period is increasing. The tidal locking mechanism keeps the rotation rate at zero.
spinners will go to fantastic lengths to rationalize what is believe to be true.
the only issue here in front of us is whether there is such a motion as a rotation on an external axis.
if there is then every particle in the universe we consider to be part of a rotating object is rotating on a center outside of the particle. and the sum of these rotations equals the angular momentum of any object made up of particles rotating around an external axis while the object itself could be instead viewed as rotating on its own com.
also the object itself may be rotating around an external axis in which case the sum of the rotations of the particles still equals the angular momentum around that external axis.
cassini showed this to be true for elliptical rotations as well because of his discovery that angular momentum remains constant despite the librations and elliptical orbit path.
and the above demonstrates that there is no angular momentum difference between the positions its just a matter of how one chooses to organize their thoughts on the matter.
that makes the spinner argument without any merit in proclaiming without quantifiable evidence that rotations on an external axis must be classified as a general plane motion like a wheel rolling down a road and that a non-spinning skater skating a straight line past a post has angular momentum around that post simply because we could predict the angular momentum if she reached out and grabbed the post thereby exerting a turning force then she would be rotating.
"Tidal locking slow the rotation of a moon until it rotates once in the inertial reference frame for each orbit around its planet"
That would be in the same inertial reference frame that Mount Everest rotates on its own internal axis once for every rotation of the Earth on its own axis, right?
and the above actually explains a lot more about spinners. in general they don’t need quantifiable evidence to believe what their superiors tell them is so. we see that to be the case pretty much along party lines as well.
“keeps the rotation rate at zero”
Did DREMT admit he thinks the Moon isn’t rotating?
Bill, aside from a lot of gobbledegook, this:
“cassini showed this to be true for elliptical rotations as well because of his discovery that angular momentum remains constant despite the librations and elliptical orbit path.”
is some BS that you shamelessly made up.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cassinis-laws
“The Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth”
Nate once again eschews the quantitative argument demanded by science and resorts to what his Daddy told him.
nate is just a living breathing last guy in line to hear the story in that classic party game that involves a serial retelling of a story among the party guests.
i can’t imagine how newton and cassini wouldn’t understand what i am saying as looking to quantified science has very little correlation to listening to one’s daddy.
Moon Dragon cranks will go to fantastic lengths to rationalize what a very select few believe is true.
Meanwhile, they are still stuck at explaining how spin-orbit synchronization would stop the Moon from spinning completely when it can both slow down and speed up.
Little Willy will never understand really, really simple things. He thinks that’s anyone’s fault but his own.
Gaslighting Graham still gaslight with a silly MacGuffin.
See? He blames it on me.
Bill, You are making up sh*t that Cassini never claimed. That’s all there is to it.
Wondering Wee Willy,
“Meanwhile, they are still stuck at explaining how spin-orbit synchronization would stop the Moon from spinning completely when it can both slow down and speed up.”
The Moon slows down and speeds up because of the force of gravity. Kepler’s 2nd. Law.
Nobody knows the mechanism behind chaotic physical librations.
It’s fairly obvious that viewed from the distant stars, even Newton’s non-rotating cannonball would show all sides in succession – without spinning at all.
Just like the Moon.
Mike Flynn,
The conservation of angular momentum in the EarthMoon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon, due to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth.
This in turn results in the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth, at about 65.7 nanoseconds per day, and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon’s orbit, at about 3.82 centimeters per year.
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The conservation of angular momentum in the EarthMoon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon, due to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth.
This in turn results in the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth, at about 65.7 nanoseconds per day, and in gradual increase of the radius of Moons orbit, at about 3.82 centimeters per year.”
Complete nonsense. There is no “transfer of angular momentum”. You may have been gulled by some person at NASA marginally more intelligent than you.
Maybe you could quote Wikipedia, which states –
“Scientists reported that in 2020 Earth had started spinning faster, after consistently spinning slower than 86,400 seconds per day in the decades before. On June 29, 2022, Earth’s spin was completed in 1.59 milliseconds under 24 hours, setting a new record.[3] Because of that trend, engineers worldwide are discussing a ‘negative leap second’ and other possible timekeeping measures.”
Go on Wee Willy, who do you believe more? Think for yourself, for a change.
Nate says:
Bill, You are making up sh*t that Cassini never claimed. Thats all there is to it.
————————
Nate once again eschews the quantitative argument demanded by science and resorts to what his Daddy told him.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Maybe you could quote Wikipedia”
I just did!
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
There you go!
Two contradictory statements from Wikipedia. You see how silly it can be, appealing to the authority of Wikipedia.
Which quote do you wish to go with?
Is the Earth’s rotation steadily slowing, or does it speed up sometimes for no definite reason?
Due to the mythical GHE, do you think?
[chortling at gullible GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Statements? Contradictory?
What are you braying about?
“Nate once again eschews the quantitative argument demanded by science and resorts to what his Daddy told him.”
Bill’s totally given up on fact-based arguments–they have failed to work for him.
Well you could have saved a lot of time by pointing out I was talking about Kepler rather than Cassini. But you just don’t want to admit to the fact so you would rather obfuscate rather than take the subject on.
Willard says:
Riddle me this, Puffman
How could the Moon be in a spin-orbit lock with the Earth
——————————-
spin-orbit lock is merely an expression invented by your daddy to imply a tidal lock as if it could simultaneously be locked and orbit and spin at the same time.
dremt already presented a video that that is impossible. so willard why don’t you go out in your garage and build such a device while filming it in a 20 part youtube video for our entertainment. 🙂
“dremt already presented a video that that is impossible.”
Nah everything dremt has shown is flawed and has been debunked.
Just endless rinse and repeat of the same nonsense.
You ignore facts again and again.
Your argument is at a dead end.
The best part is still that Gill is alone among Dragon cranks to accept the impossibility demonstrated by the CSA Truther.
"dremt already presented a video that that is impossible"
Well, it’s impossible if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. That’s what the CSAItruth demonstration is all about, or at least that’s why I link to it. It shows the "Non-Spinner" position of what various combinations of "orbit" and "spin" look like so long as "orbit without spin" is understood to be as per the MOTL.
That’s the takeaway point, really. The CSAItruth demonstration does not judge spin wrt a rotating reference frame. It simply shows the consequence of "orbit without spin" being like the MOTL.
Once that’s understood, point 3) can be acknowledged as being correct, and we’re all a little closer to being enlightened. This can be repeated as many times as is necessary for it to be the last word on this sub-thread.
” The CSAItruth demonstration does not judge spin wrt a rotating reference frame.”
It does EXACTLY that several times. I recall one around the two minute mark, where he states, ‘the Moon has rotated 180 degrees’. While it quite obviously made one complete rotation of 360 degrees wrt to the rest frame.
Only wrt to a ROTATING frame, rotating at the same rate as the Moon orbits, did the Moon rotate 180 degrees.
So plainly, he was judging lunar rotation using a rotating frame of reference.
And he did this several times.
…that’s the takeaway point, really. The CSAItruth demonstration does not judge spin wrt a rotating reference frame. It simply shows the consequence of "orbit without spin" being like the MOTL.
Once that’s understood, point 3) can be acknowledged as being correct, and we’re all a little closer to being enlightened. This can be repeated as many times as is necessary for it to be the last word on this sub-thread.
“Once thats understood,”
Nah, if not by now, then likely never.
Might as well go home and spend time with real family.
…the takeaway point, really. The CSAItruth demonstration does not judge spin wrt a rotating reference frame. It simply shows the consequence of "orbit without spin" being like the MOTL.
Once that’s understood, point 3) can be acknowledged as being correct, and we’re all a little closer to being enlightened. This can be repeated as many times as is necessary for it to be the last word on this sub-thread.
Go ahead, and we will award you the coveted ‘Last Word’ prize.
Although your arguments lacked facts or sound logic, at least you will have won something as consolation…
…takeaway point, really. The CSAItruth demonstration does not judge spin wrt a rotating reference frame. It simply shows the consequence of "orbit without spin" being like the MOTL.
Once that’s understood, point 3) can be acknowledged as being correct, and we’re all a little closer to being enlightened. This can be repeated as many times as is necessary for it to be the last word on this sub-thread.
***WARNING***
This comment contains science. No children allowed.
A major part of the field of physics involves motion. The three divisions of the study of motion are Kinematics, Kinetics, and Orbits. Sometimes the rules are the same, but sometimes they are different. One consistent law among all three groups is vector addition. Motion, and the forces acting on a body, can be represented by vectors, so a knowledge of vectors is necessary in any of the fields of motion.
In orbital motion, specifically the motion of Moon, there are two vectors acting. One vector is due to gravity. The other is due to the linear velocity of the orbiting body. Both vectors operate on Moon’s center of mass. The velocity vector would push Moon in a straight line, if no other vectors were acting.
But Moon’s velocity vector is not alone. Moon’s gravity vector also affects Moon’s motion. The two vectors add to a “resultant” vector, with a new instantaneous direction and speed.
Here’s a clear explanation of basic vector addition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFRW0f0XUU8
It is the resultant of the two vectors (gravity and velocity) that constantly change the direction (and speed) of Moon. If Moon’s orbit were a perfect circle, its speed would be the same all around the orbit. Likewise, the gravity vector would be the same. But, because Moon has an elliptical orbit, the two vectors are always changing. That’s not a problem, as the resultant is what determines Moon’s path.
For those that understand how the two vectors control Moon, it is easy to then understand why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model of “orbital motion without spin”. The vectors are basically the same as a non-spinning moon, or planet, in a circular orbit. The string represents the gravity vector, holding the ball in its orbit.
The cult tries to use the MOTR as their model of “orbital motion without spin” But, that model fails. Folkerts keeps imagining a “frictionless axle”, not realizing that the MOTR would be rotating about that axle. His attempt to use the MOTR results in revealing what it is — “orbital motion WITH spin”!
This graphic allows visualizations. Turn on the Moon vectors:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_all.html
Yes we saw that nice tool for modeling planetary motion.
And we saw that it thoroughly disproved your claim that the with gravity turned off, the Moon would fly off without SPIN.
It showed that the Moon flew off with SPIN, demonstrating that the orbiting Moon had SPIN.
Then you were forced to claim it had ‘bad programming’. Of course, no evidence was offered.
Wrong again, Nate.
The moon graphic must be programmed to keep one face toward Earth, since gravity does not work in a computer program. So a subroutine would have the moon rotating. Then, the subroutine is programmed to orbit Earth, completing the computer model.
When gravity is turned off, the subroutine must then be turned off also. I suspect the programmer just forgot to do that.
> When gravity is turned off, the subroutine must then be turned off also.
Five years and you still forget to say why, Puffman.
Why is that?
“since gravity does not work in a computer program.”
Don’t be daft.
The program incorporates mathematics to realistically account for gravity, and linear and angular momentum.
“So a subroutine would have the moon rotating. Then, the subroutine is programmed to orbit Earth, completing the computer model.”
Oops! You accidentally ADMIT that the Moon would need to be rotating AND orbiting.
“When gravity is turned off, the subroutine must then be turned off also.”
Huh?
Your assumptions about the programming are naive.
When gravity turns off, the Moon is no longer compelled to orbit, and it continues moving in a straight line.
But due to rotational inertia nothing stops its rotation.
The program is replicating correct physics.
This is why I no longer waste time with these cult children.
Here, Nate demonstrates he doesn’t understand the science or the programming. His confusion is then, in his mind, all my fault.
Of course, he includes the immature insults.
Here we demonstrate how when Clint has NO science rebuttal, he just tells us we wouldn’t understand.
Weak.
This is why I no longer waste time with these cult children.
Except when you think you have an answer, such as here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1577860
Correct child. I gave you the correct answer. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Maybe when you grow up?
Nate apparently believes the moon is rolling around the earth like a wheel on an axle. Or maybe its translating on a wire strung around the earth and we just can’t see it like when the production studios fly superman around on a wire with a motor dangling from the wire to rotate the moon as it travels around the earth.
Whatever the case he sure doesn’t want to suggest its rotating on the COM of earth. Weird, really weird.
Gill sincerely believes that he can project the ball-on-string model onto Team Science and nobody will notice. As long as it makes him hope that his daddy will be proud of him, there is no real harm in that!
Bill goes off topic whenever he has nothing of value to contribute.
And he repeatedly makes up my fake arguments for me, because obviously he has not sensible answers for my actual arguments.
He has no shame.
Meanwhile Clint blames others for HIS total lack of a sound argument.
Somehow he thinks that is the adult way.
Nate I am not quoting any of your arguments and you can’t claim I am I am just pointing to the logical conclusions of your views on science and you predictably react to that as always with complaint but no rebuttal.
“I am just pointing to the logical conclusions of your views”
Very funny. You simply can’t rebut my actual arguments, so you shamelessly fabricate stoopid ones.
Your job is to come up with an argument why they don’t measure up. Not just run away while shouting they don’t.
Gill’s job is to come up with an argument first.
Perhaps he should ask his daddy.
“Your job is to come up with an argument why they dont measure up.”
First we need someone who can translate your gibberish into logical thoughts put into clear english.
the spinners will totally avoid a description of the mechanism the see drives the direction of the moons motion and not being able to improve on the Madhavi example of a general plane motion being a wheel rolling down a road to explain the moon’s motion. really sad they have no scenario for the construction of their belief system. thus it must have been inculcated by repetition rather than an imaginative design outcome.
just another brick in the wall
” Madhavi example of a general plane motion ”
Unless you totally lack understanding of what the motion is, and lack imagination, you should realize that there are many many examples, including a body translating in an elliptical orbit, while rotating on its own axis.
” totally avoid a description of the mechanism”
Not at all. Newton described the mechanism for the orbit of a planet or moon on an elliptical path. Physics describes the mechanism for a spinning object to maintain it’s spin, whilst it translates on a path.
Yes and in each case its all explained here how the particles can not rotate while the object does.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579195
Nope, nothing.
Nate you are only the product that Pink Floyd based a rock concert on. Just another brick in the wall.
Your link is to nothing.
thats weird somehow one number at the end changed from a 1 to a 5.
—————–
Anyway here is the correct link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579191
So for your statement:
”Unless you totally lack understanding of what the motion is, and lack imagination, you should realize that there are many many examples, including a body translating in an elliptical orbit, while rotating on its own axis.”
Nate this is an impossible motion. The particles in relationship to one another cannot be both rotating and not rotating at the same time. Madhavi outlines all the possibilities for plane motion in 4 concepts.
Madhavi Outline:
You can have the body rotate and the particles rotate. Quite simply a one motion rotation. Fig 1 and modified by Section 6.0 and Fig 14 for instantaneous pure rotations (which the moon is constantly in)
You can have the body not rotate and the particles not rotate. Quite simply a one motion translation. Fig 1
You can have the body rotate and the particles not rotate for a curvilinear translation. Fig 2(a)
You can have the body translate while the particles rotate for a General plane motion. Fig 3
Bottom line Nate in none of Madhavi’s coverage of motions does she have the particles of a body both rotating and translating at the same time. The same is true for a rigid object it can’t both rotate and translate at the same time.
No where in this course (except out of context) is there any justification for not calling an orbit a rotation whether it is elliptical, circular, or partial as that is made clear in Section 6.
“But the idea of the moon both translating without a line through any two particles changing direction while at the same time rotating with all lines between any two particles rotating at the same time is impossible.”
I don’t see any problem with a body whose motion is a combination of rotation and translation.
That is exactly what Madhavi stated was what a General Plane Motion is.
And again, you have not defined what you mean by ONE motion.
From my POV, since a body has many particles, there can be any number of motions. However since, the particles are constrained to move together, the number of motions is reduced to what are called the ‘degrees of freedom’.
In the case of a rigid body, in 3D space, it’s rotation around 3 axes must be specified. And its translation in 3 directions must be specified. So, strictly speaking it has 6 degrees of freedom.
So a body can be simply translating along the x-axis. That is one motion. Then a second motion can be added, a rotation around the y-axis. From my POV that is two motions.
Nate says:
”So a body can be simply translating along the x-axis. That is one motion. Then a second motion can be added, a rotation around the y-axis. From my POV that is two motions.”
Yes indeed Madhavi designates that as a general plane motion. But a body translating along an axis means the body is moving in a straight line.
to save some time here:
the body can also curvilinearly translate around an axis without any line in the particles changing directions but now you are barred from having the particles rotate about the y axis.
You can add a motion as noted above to have the particles rotate around the y axis. . .but now you no longer have a curvilinear translation and now the orbit must be considered to be a rotation.
So that leaves us with two rotations as there is no condition requiring a certain alignment of particles for a rotation.
And since you have two rotations now one each on two different axes all you have to do is figure out what you can do and can’t do with the two rotations moving at the same time. DREMT’s video handles that very nicely.
“You can add a motion as noted above to have the particles rotate around the y axis. . .but now you no longer have a curvilinear translation and now the orbit must be considered to be a rotation.”
You are getting closer.
It is still a COMBINATION of the two motions. So it makes no sense to call that a rotation.
Madhavi calls this a General Plane Motion, which is NEITHER a rotation or a translation.
Perhaps Nate. But you have to consider your criticism extends to ALL rotations where you are looking for the motions of particles and bodies to define what a rotation is.
So you have the particles of earth traveling on elliptical paths around the COM of the earth and you do want to call that a rotation right?
I don’t think so. Its pretty clear that the moon rotates around the earth via Section 6 of Madhavi’s course and her example of a General plane motion only involves motions that are neither a rotation or a translation. . .which by logic must be the sum of a translation and a rotation. . .otherwise it is the sum of two rotations like earth which is regarded as a rotation, or its sum two translations like in vector/force physics which is a translation.
So what you are lacking for the general plane motion is a translation. You are well aware of that and that is why you have argued for years that an orbit is a translation. Now you are trying to walk that back and gee that door is closed also.
“where you are looking for the motions of particles and bodies to define what a rotation is.”
I don’t need to look at different motions to define what rotation is.
That is the point of having a definition. Then you can look to see which motions satisfy it.
“So you have the particles of earth traveling on elliptical paths around the COM of the earth and you do want to call that a rotation right?”
No we don’t. You again claim something without evidence.
Perturbations are what? Relatively small bulges and fluctuations. If you think those fortuitously produce an elliptical shape, you are smoking something.
My daily motion around the Earth’s axis is, to a very good approximation, circular, and thus meets the definition of a uniform rotation around an external axis.
Even though I may go to work and back, and change my elevation, thus deviate VERY slightly from a circle. That doesnt make my motion an ellipse! A circular model is still better.
And obviously while I am daily rotating around the Earth’s axis, I am also translating around the sun.
OTOH, the orbit of Mars is elliptical as Kepler could discern from the observational data of Tycho Brahe. Even with perturbations from Jupiter etc, its orbit is BEST modeled as an ellipse, not a circle.
And Newton’s laws explain it.
So science can discern differences, that allows them to categorize motions. I see no good reason to deny that.
Nate says:
”My daily motion around the Earths axis is, to a very good approximation, circular, and thus meets the definition of a uniform rotation around an external axis.”
I agree. But exactly who formulated the standard where eccentricity suddenly causes something to no longer be considered to be a rotation? Source please.
“I agree. But exactly who formulated the standard where eccentricity suddenly causes something to no longer be considered to be a rotation?”
Kepler, Newton, and many after. Mathematicians from ancient Greece.
Again, why do you feel the need to prevent motions from being discriminated and categorized by science?
Until you offer an alternative definition of rotation, your protests that people should ignore the standard definition, are just hot air.
So what is the standard you have already allowed for an elliptical motion around the center of mass of an object that is rotating around another object that is stretching the orbiting body. Is the stand like .02 eccentricity? And please no name dropping provide a source of how this standard was set.
On second thought I know you have no answer to the question and that you will go into your typical obfuscation dance instead. Lets just call it what it is: Daddy Sez science!
Well, 3 centuries confirming the science is a good bet.
You mean 3 centuries of sycophants repeating the fiat over and over again?
Awww, ordinary science doesnt agree with your beliefs? It must be wrong!
My standard is if you have two models and one fits much much better to the observed motion, the I go with that one.
I dont choose a model because it is the most contrary to established science.
That appears to be your method.
” But exactly who formulated the standard where eccentricity suddenly causes something to no longer be considered to be a rotation? Source please.”
All planetary orbits are ellipses. Some have tiny eccentricity, and can be approximated as circular.
Why is that a problem for you?
Nate says:
”Awww, ordinary science doesnt agree with your beliefs? It must be wrong!”
3 centuries of sycophancy does not science make.
You haven’t presented any science or quantification of how the science was arrived at. Thus its your argument consists exclusively as repetitive mutterings of scientists. . .extracted from discussions on other matters.
Evidence that science of the last 3 centuries must be sycophancy?
All the argument about whether the orbit is a rotation has entirely been an argument of semantics. And from the only sources you have come up with they are 3 centuries old. Repeating those definitions by fiat over and over again without evidence is sycophancy.
“All the argument about whether the orbit is a rotation has entirely been an argument of semantics.”
Glad you have come around to that!
Ive been saying that for sometime. It has been all about the labels attached to things.
IMO, we should not label things based on our personal feelings, but on how things are universally defined.
“And from the only sources you have come up with they are 3 centuries old. Repeating those definitions by fiat over and over again without evidence is sycophancy.”
Obviously most of the words we use today originated centuries ago. That is hardly sychophancy, just people using language.
In science and mathematics, a lack of universal definitions is a detriment to communication and adoption of new ideas.
Since rotation is defined the way it is in Madhavi, everyone who sees the word in a publication should understand its meaning.
come around to that? I said this was a semantical definition thing back in the first comment section I commented on this issue a couple years ago or so.
I termed it as being a convenient convention for astronomers and astrophysicists and stated that you guys were trying to insist beyond that.
DREMT has been saying that for quite sometime and I have supported his statements on that. If anything you came around. good to hear.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579806
As I noted.
“If YOU PERSONALLY want to call a planetary motion a rotation, or call a frog a toad, or call a crab a bug, or call a bat a bird, go right ahead!”
Nate your years of arguing has been focused on defining rotation the way you and your kind want to define rotation. All semantics.
We have effectively argued against your argument from a semantics point of view and a mechanical point of view. You guys gave up maybe a year ago trying to argue for the moon’s motion to be a remnant spin as that argument only deals with spins in one direction.
And mechanically per DREMTS video we have a spin that is an orbit which if another spin were present it doesn’t matter which direction it is going its incompatible.
So near as I can tell you have no source for your version of a rotation, or at least you unsuccessfully tried to use Madhavi and haven’t produced any other. Fact is Madhavi is a complete source as here purpose of establishing definitions is to fit them to the mechanical physics used to work on these different types of motions. So you need a lot more than somebody saying the moon spins on its own axis. You need to reclassify Madhavi’s definitions and then show how you would work on them mechanically as Madhavi instructs us on.
“So near as I can tell you have no source for your version of a rotation, or at least you unsuccessfully tried to use Madhavi and havent produced any other. Fact is Madhavi is a complete source as here purpose of establishing definitions is to fit them to the mechanical physics used to work on these different types of motions.”
Whereas you guys offer NO SOURCE for your non-existent definition.
If were being genuine here, and being serious here, you would offer an alternative definition of rotation, from a legitimate source.
But you never do. Obviously you have none.
Then you are just asserting, without evidence, that you know a rotation when you see one, and elliptical orbits are that. Which is fine as your personal feeling, but does nothing to advance your argument for other people. And it aint science.
And stop pretending that our ONLY argument is the definition of rotation.
-Libration, not even attempted to be explained by your model, is easily explained by spinner model.
-Axial tilt is observed. The lunar poles are observed. These cannot EXIST without an axis. An axis is only defined by rotation around it. Consider how we know where the Earth’s axis is and its poles are.
-Physics motivation-Newton’s laws finds the orbit, which is the path the object (iow its COM) takes through space. It does NOT find orientation, or spin. Those are separately observed parameters.
-Universality motivation. Universally orbits are elliptical, with bodies having a wide spectrum of rotation rates and axial tilts. Thus, in general, ROTATION and ORBIT are independent parameters. It makes no sense to define these parameters based on one specific TYPE of orbit with a 1-1 spin-orbit resonance.
-Your notion that an ORBIT is defined by a specific orientation of the body, is not supported by any source. This is pure assertion.
-Spin angular velocity is constant during an orbit, while orbital angular velocity is not. It makes sense to classify them as independent motions.
-etc,etc.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582206
Clint R,
“But Moons velocity vector is not alone. Moons gravity vector also affects Moons motion. The two vectors add to a resultant vector, with a new instantaneous direction and speed.”
You can’t add a velocity vector to an acceleration vector.
Show me your work, how do you add these two vectors, what is the magnitude and direction of the “resultant” vector.
Sorry bob, but you would have to pass the pre-requisite courses first.
And, it’s going to be a lot more than 50 bucks….
Clint R,
So you can’t add the two vectors?
What’s a matter, not too bright?
Don’t comment here for 180 days bob, and I’ll show you how it’s done.
What a deal!
Clint R,
Remember, I already played that game, and you welshed on the bet.
Apologies to anyone from Wales on this board.
You still owe me a proof that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
You want me to go away for 180 days, and then you will show me how to do something that can’t be done.
You can’t add two vectors unless they have the same units.
A velocity vector added to an acceleration vector does not compute.
10 meters/second plus 1 meter/second^2 equals what now?
False accusations just make you look like a cult child, bob.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1577844
Don’t comment here for 180 days bob, and Ill show you how it’s done.
Blundering bob,
You wrote –
“You still owe me a proof that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.”
You still owe me a proof that you know what you are talking about.
If you believe that the Earth was created cold, and has been heated by sunlight and the GHE over the past four and a half billion years, that’s about 0.06 K per million years.
No chance of dying from the planet heating up too much in the next million years or so, is there?
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Can you prove it!
Moon’s gravity vector?
Your “resultant” vector has to be changing, what force is causing that change?
Laughing my ass off.
Proof that the Moon doesn’t rotate, rolling on the floor.
You are a funny guy.
Swenson,
“If you believe that the Earth was created cold, and has been heated by sunlight and the GHE over the past four and a half billion years, thats about 0.06 K per million years.”
No, I don’t believe that’s true, but there are at least three other things that have caused the Earth to heat up in the meantime.
I think the Earth formed cold and was heated up by the GHE, the Sun, and at least three other things.
Maybe you know them.
List them please.
Bumbling bob,
You wrote –
“No, I dont believe thats true, but there are at least three other things that have caused the Earth to heat up in the meantime.
I think the Earth formed cold and was heated up by the GHE, the Sun, and at least three other things.
Maybe you know them.
List them please.”
No. Makes no difference, does it? Heating at the rate of 0.06 K per million years would be unlikely to worry me all that much, even if true.
The Earth was created with a molten surface.
Whether you accept it or not, there is still no GHE heating the planet.
Keep providing some GHE cultist comic relief.
Swenson,
The Earth wasn’t created. Unless you mean this.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
Doesn’t say molten.
bob…in between, God must have built the oceans to cool the place down.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“The Earth wasnt created.”
If you say so, bobby, if you say so.
Gordon,
God built the heavens and the Earth, the waters were already there.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
When the bullet is fired, the rifling in the barrel imparts a spin on the bullet, giving it angular momentum. This spin stabilizes the bullet in flight, similar to how a spinning top stays upright. As a result, the bullet maintains its orientation and trajectory, increasing its accuracy over longer distances.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-angular-momentum-keep-a-bullet-straight
Here’s a nice animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAM-D_1920x1080.ogv
Just now catching up on the fun I missed yesterday.
Bindi is once again bringing up dead astrologers and misrepresenting Newton. That’s always good for a laugh.
But now he’s confused about tides, not realizing that we see tides because of Earth’s rotation. If Earth always faced Sun (didn’t spin), the tides would not be so obvious. Simple things like this are beyond poor Bindi.
And he’s also confused about the LRR. Because we can bounce photons off reflectors on Moon, Bindi believes that is somehow “proof” that Moon spins. Poor Bindi.
“If Earth always faced Sun (didnt spin), the tides would not be so obvious.”
The Earth gets tides from the Sun and the Moon. If Earth didn’t spin {was tidally with the Sun] Earth would only get monthly tides from the Moon and yearly tides from Sun. Due to changes of the distances of Moon and Sun in regards to Earth and with Moon changes locations of Earth’s surface vs the Moon. And wouldn’t be obvious, or it’s Earth’s spin of 24 hour day which gives the more dramatic daily effects of the Moon and Sun.
The Moon both amplifies and nullifies the Sun’s effect, if Earth was tidally locked with Sun, it could appear the effect was only caused by the Moon- it seems to me, it would harder determine the force of gravity and determine that Earth wasn’t the center of the universe.
Another reason God gave us, the Moon??
Or people usually say it, because the Moon is gateway to our solar system or a way to becoming a spacefaring civilization {be able to go to Heaven}.
Our ability to bounce photons off lunar reflectors allows us to monitor the Moon’s distance.
From that We can measure the rate at which it’s orbital period lengthens; it’s angular momentum decreases and it’s rotation slows to maintain its orient
Now, it the Moon is not rotating, why does its angular momentum have to change over time?
EM,
Are you talking about the angular momentum of the Moon travelling around its orbital path?
The Moon is moving away from the Earth because its speed is slightly greater than that required to maintain a constant orbit.
Slower, and it would eventually fall to Earth.
Or are you thinking about angular momentum of the Moon around its center of mass?
The angular momentum in either case is not conserved, as neither system is closed.
Mike Flynn,
You can sure play dumb.
What are you trying to say – that you have no idea how physics work?
Go on. You’re doing very well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…the Moon has no angular momentum, it has only linear momentum. That momentum cannot change over time without providing a tangential force to aid or abet the linear momentum. Although it can be claimed that a radial gravitational force vector must be broken down into components of radial and tangential at certain parts of the orbit, the tangential component is so small that it can hardly be referred to as an aiding or abetting force for such a massive object as the Moon.
We must differentiate between linear velocity and orbital speed. Orbital speed, which is a measure of the angular speed of a radial vector between the Earth and Moon can vary slightly, but not the tangential velocity. The variation in orbital speed can be attributed to the ratio of momentum to gravitational force.
I like to regard it as follows. The two main factors in lunar orbital motion are the Moon’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational pull on the Moon, which is pretty weak at the Moon’s altitude. However, it is sufficient to bend the Moon enough from a straight line to form an orbit that follows the Earth’s curvature. All it does is bend the Moon 5 metres off its linear path for every 8000 metres of tangential movement but that is exactly the required deviation to follow the Earth’s curvature.
So, it’s a balance between linear momentum and gravitational force. At certain parts of the orbital path, one is more pronounced than the other and that produces the eccentricity in orbit. But it also produces a variation in angular speed as the momentum is more significant than the gravitational force. In other words, with the momentum more significant, more ground is covered in the same time, which translates to an increased angular speed but not an increased tangential velocity.
Cool story, Bordo.
When I try to *bend* a ball by attaching a string to it, does it still move with linear momentum only?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moon’s sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moon’s sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moon’s sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moon’s around Earth orbital, Moons around sun orbital and Moon’s around its axis movements.
Since Moon’s sidereal spin is equal to the Moon’s around Earth orbital movement, Moon’s axial spin is zero and Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
Our Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moon’s diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moons sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moons diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moons sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moons diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moons spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
****
Now let’s calculate:
1/58,646 = 0,0170514 rot/day is the Mercury’s spin in reference to the stars
1/87,97 = 0,0113675 rot/day is the Mercury’s additional spin because of the Mercury orbiting sun
and
1/176 = 0,00568181 rot/day is the Mercury’s spin in reference to the sun
What we see here is that Mercury rotates on its own axis once every orbit around the sun. That is why Mercury’s diurnal cycle lasts two Mercurian years.
Let’s summarize the different rotations
Rot Stars = Rot Orbital + Rotation Sun
0,0170514 = 0,0113675 + 0,00568181
****
If our Moon were rotating on its axis once every time Moon orbited Earth, Moon’s diurnal cycle would last 29,53 x 2 = 59,06 earthen days.
–
Also, if our Moon were rotating on its axis once every time Moon orbited Earth, Moon’s sidereal rotation period (in reference to the stars) would last 27,32 / 2 = 13,66 earthen days.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Since Moons sidereal spin is equal to the Moons around Earth orbital movement…”.
***
Christos…I know English is not your first language but even people who speak English become confused about the meaning of ‘spin’. In order for a body to ‘spin’, it must have an angular momentum about an axis. If a ballerina spins on her toes, it mean her entire body is physically rotating about a vertical axis. A child’s toy, a ‘spinning top’, which is similar to a gyroscope, spins about a vertical axis when it is wound up.
The Earth spins on a N-S axis but even at that I cannot bring myself to call that a spin, because it is relatively much too slow to be a proper spin. In my mind, a spin is a faster rotation. We have a mental disorder, we call vertigo, where a room may appear to spin about us causing a temporary disorientation. If the room appeared to spin every 24 hours we would not notice it, but with vertigo it appears to spin rapidly. It can occur when we drink too much alcohol.
What you are describing as spin I call a change of orientation. In other words, the near-face of the Moon is changing orientation wrt to the background stars. As you know, that is not a rotation about a local axis, it is a product of curvilinear motion.
Curvilinear motion is misunderstood as well. Newton knew what it meant when he described the lunar orbit as a curvilinear motion. However, in textbooks today it is misconstrued as meaning something else entirely. I don’t know how that confusion occurred.
Obviously, rectilinear motion is a motion between 2 points along a straight line. It does not matter if the motion is along one line or along 2 or more lines, as long as the path is straight along each line. For example, if I move between points A and B, I can go straight from A to B along one line, or I can go to a point C between the two and then to point B. The point is that all points on the body should move parallel to each other at the same speed at any one instant.
What happens if we take an infinite number of lines till they approximate a curved path between A and B? Of course, the path must be continuous to define it as a curve but what do we have if we form a continuous curve between A and B? We have curvilinear path. That is, all parts of the body move in parallel and at the same speed.
Here, we must redefine parallel and ‘same speed’. But we have to do that anyway when we move from straight line motion to motion along a curve. With the curve, we use tangent lines and radial lines to define parallel and angular speed, where angular speed is a reference to the angular velocity of a radial line that helps define the curve.
Therefore, curvilinear motion is exactly the same motion as rectilinear motion ‘in the limit’. Since Newton invented the concept of a limit as the basis of calculus, and he referred to the lunar motion as curvilinear, I am sure he knew what he was talking about. He also stated that the Moon moves with a linear motion, also meaning an instantaneous linear motion. I am sure he meant that the curvilinear lunar motion was an integral of all the instantaneous linear motions.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Cycle of lunar phases takes 29.5 days this is the SYNODIC PERIOD.
Why is this longer than the SIDERIAL PERIOD which was 27.3 days? very simple: this is because the moon returns to the same place on the sky once every siderial period, but the sun is also moving on the sky. When the moon returns to the same spot on the sky the sun has moved 27 degrees. Thus the moon now has to take some extra time to catch up. (figure 3-4). The moon takes about 2 days to catch up.
https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/moonorbit.html
Silly willy finds more links he can’t understand.
But this one is funny because it contains so many errors. “Sidereal” is the correct spelling, not with a 2nd “I”. And I bet none of the cult can find the error in this sentence: “When the moon returns to the same spot on the sky the sun has moved 27 degrees.”
Silly willy. doesn’t have to keep proving how immature and uneducated he is, but he can’t help himself. He’s addicted to keyboarding.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
[TEAM MOON DRAGON CRANKS] If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
[TEAM SCIENCE] the moon returns to the same place on the sky once every siderial period, but the sun is also moving on the sky. When the moon returns to the same spot on the sky the sun has moved 27 degrees. Thus the moon now has to take some extra time to catch up. (figure 3-4). The moon takes about 2 days to catch up.
What does Team Moon Dragon Cranks got?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well gee, Willard.
You can copy and paste from an internet site.
What are you trying to say? That Cristos is correct?
Why not just say it, then?
Mike Flynn,
You can respond to a comment without understanding it.
What are you trying to prove? That you can bray and bray and bray?
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Someone is seriously confused. The synodic and sidereal periods have nothing to do with solar motion ‘in the sky’ and everything to do with the Earth’s motion in its orbit. It’s hard for me, as a student of science, to take in such a gaffe by a university type who thinks the Sun is moving in the sky.
Earlier in the article he/she admits that sidereal motion is wrt ‘the stars’ but that is not a reference to our star, the Sun. It is a reference to all background stars. From one night to the next, it is the Earth that has moved in its orbit, therefore, sunrise will occur a bit later the next day. However, we don’t base Earth-time on sunrise/sunset, but on the position of the Sun in the sky at noon.
The reference to the Moon ‘catching up’ is sheer nonsense. It moves at the same rate every day/night. It is the relative motion of the Earth in its orbit that causes such an illusion. It’s little wonder that such a mind thinks the Moon spins exactly once per orbit, even though he/she, as usual, offers no physical proof.
Cool story, Bordo:
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
What were you saying about the Moon moving at the same rate every day/night, again?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What were you saying about the Moon moving at the same rate every day/night, again?”
Are you deaf, or just ignorant? Only joking, you’re just a silly troll.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for underlining the part where Bordo puts a foot in his mouth.
Please, do continue.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“What were you saying about the Moon moving at the same rate every day/night, again?”
Are you deaf, or just ignorant? Only joking, youre just a silly troll.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon does not move at the same rate every day or night.
This refutes what Bordo said.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Middle French, from Latin sideralis, from sider-, sidus star, constellation + -alis -al
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sideral
Willard chooses to appeal to authorities who are completely inept, trying to confuse.
From his link about the Moon’s motion –
“This is called the SIDERIAL PERIOD or SIDEREAL MONTH.”
So which is it, SIDERIAL, or SIDEREAL? Or is this just Willard’s usual sloppy incompetence on view?
Or maybe Willard thinks “SIDERAL” to be more appropriate, but won’t come out and say so, for fear he will look like an inept troll!
Way to go, Willard!
Mike Flynn chooses to bray instead of acknowledging that “sideral” is perfectly fine. And he keeps harping about authorities in matters of correct spelling. It’s hard to tell if he’s better at being an asshat or at being the dumbest commenter at Roy’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“The theory of the rotating Moon cannot be explained physically.”
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation explains the motion of the Moon.
No celestial beings or mystical incantations required.
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation has no known exceptions, which is why it is referred to as a law.
You don’t have to believe in gravity, of course.
It’s a free world (so it’s said).
” Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“The theory of the rotating Moon cannot be explained physically.” ”
Entropic man, really?
What about looking at the nonsense written by Robertson on December 20, 2023 at 2:32 AM, Flynnson?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
That sentence originated with one of the non-spinners. ClintR?
Bordo.
Entropic Man, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Some dead ends just don’t end.
The deeper you go into them, the more they expand and gradually pull you out of reality – until one day you begin to denŷ this reality piece by piece and replace it with own mental constructions you endlessly repeat.
This denal sits so deep in the head of the lunar spin deners that even if the team responsible for JWST would show them hour by hour how Jupiter’s Galilean satellites rotate about their respective axis in the same time as they orbit Jupiter, they would say:
” That’s all fake. These satellites don’t rotate, they just orbit. ”
*
No problem for me.
I have understood (and explained years ago on this blog) how Tobias Mayer managed in 1750 to compute the lunar spin’s period, whose value he indicated on page 168 of his treatise:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 sixtieths of a second.
This is, in decimal days, 27.321665 days: until five digits after the decimal point, exactly the same value as that computed nowadays (27.321661 days).
*
Neither Robertson nor Clint R nor DREMT nor the Hunter boy let alone Flynnson could ever scientifically invalidate these corroborating results. They only can denŷ them.
Sorry Bindi, but old Toby was “calculating” Moon’s orbital period.
Moon does NOT spin. If it did, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
You’ve never studied ANY physics, have you?
“Youve never studied ANY physics, have you?”
It is fascinating how Clint keeps repeating this line, and yet everyone who HAS actually studied physics — including me and several other posters here and NASA and Newton and the simulation he linked to and every physics text and every physic prof — agrees the that moon actually IS rotating once per month.
It makes you wonder just what physics Clint thinks we should study.
Folkerts, anyone can call themself a “physicist”. But when someone touts nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water, or doesn’t know about the basics of vectors, that person ain’t a physicist.
I see you finally found a new job — tr0lling….
Clint, anyone can call themself a “physicist”. But when someone like you touts nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water, or doesnt know about the basics of vectors, that person aint a physicist.
When you are ready to learn some correct physics, enroll in a few university classes.
Folkerts, if you use my words you should give credit. Otherwise it is called “plagiarism”, which is closely linked to fraud.
But, back to science. Got a workable model of “orbital motion without spin”, yet?
I won’t hold my breath….
Which word, Puffman – “if”?
Here’s something workable:
https://youtu.be/jG2nTPO7iU8?si=taF-BZG9XgdX6u1X
Tim Folkerts says:
”and yet everyone who HAS actually studied physics including me and several other posters here and NASA and Newton and the simulation he linked to and every physics text and every physic prof agrees the that moon actually IS rotating once per month.”
————————–
Hmmmm, non-spinners also believe the moon is rotating once a month. When did you start thinking they didn’t?
The discussion here is whether anything can rotate on an external axis.
If so then the argument is over. You will be accepting the non-spinner view that a rotation on an external axis is in a class of plane motions considered to be a rotation.
If not then you are claiming the moon and all its particles and possible parts are actually rotating around their own COMs while moving in a curvilinear translation around either the earth’s COM or both the moon’s COM and the earth’s COM simultaneously. Note all particles not centered on the moon’s COM will be in curvilinear translation around both the Earth’s COM and the Moon’s COM simultaneously. (See Madhavi: If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration).
So what is really going on is an unnecessary complication taken from the parlor game of passing along a story directly or by translation as every retelling is a translation.
No doubt all the spinners were mercilessly hazed as frosh students and have never gotten over it to an extent its now an astronomer’s secret handshake.
Bill suggests: “You will be accepting the non-spinner view that a rotation on an external axis is in a class of plane motions considered to be a rotation.”
That view is all well and good … if you are only thinking at a very elementary level. When you try to explain libration, then treating the moon as rotating about an external axis utterly fails.
The two motions proceed at two different rates. Rotation about the internal axis is at a steady rate throughout the orbit; rotation about the external axis is at varying rates (fastest at perigee; slowest at apogee). (And it is not even a “rotation” about the barycenter since the radius is not constant!)
Your “rotation about an external axis” only works for perfectly circular orbits. Our “orbit of the center of mass + rotation about an internal axis” works universally.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Your rotation about an external axis only works for perfectly circular orbits.”
”Our orbit of the center of mass + rotation about an internal axis works universally.”
Yes but for both perfectly circular orbits (actually a redundant term) and elliptical orbits.
What you need to acknowledge is so does all actual rotations on an external axis.
By being idealistically circular, which is purely in this universe non-observable. Your logic then implies we cannot be certain that there is any such thing as a rotation on an external axis. Yet its a very useful concept for all elliptical rotations. . .as you say universally so.
Yes indeed you can also breakdown a perfectly circular rotation on an external axis into a conceptual translation of a point mass plus an rotation around the orbiting body’s COM. So where is the distinction and what is the additional value of drawing the line between perfect ellipses and imperfect ellipses? Fact is if you want your calculation to come out perfectly for real world rotations on any axis, you need to pay attention to the theta parameter for every particle. Thus your claimed distinction is merely a mirage.
> circular orbits (actually a redundant term)
🤦
“there is any such thing as a rotation on an external axis.”
Yes there is. In mathematics it is well defined. In rigid body kinematics it is well defined.
The problem is that you don’t want to live with the definitions we have, yet offer no alternative definition.
You are welcome to approximate planetary orbits as circular, and call them a rotation around the sun, as Copernicus did
The whole point of Kepler/Newton/Halley is that there is a BETTER model for orbital motions.
And for bodies like Halley’s comet a circular rotation is an awful model.
Nate the standard you have been clinging to for years now of the moon’s orbit being non-circular turning that motion into a translation is wrong.
Gravitational perturbations are ubiquitous to all rotations.
Fact is gravity pulls harder on the closest particles/objects and least on more distant particles/objects.
This actually causes all moons and planets to stretch with a bulge both on the front of the moon and the back of the moon with a line through those bulges to point at the COG of the host planet/sun.
If the planet/moon is spinning on its internal axis that means the particles are traveling on an elliptical path around its own COG.
The particles are more distant from the center at two points in the spin along that line pointed at the body they orbit and they are closer to the center when they cross the path that the center is traveling on.
Yet for years you have been calling this elliptical motion a rotation while at the same time denying the elliptical path of the planet’s/moon’s orbit that is similarly stretched around the barycenter COG isn’t a rotation.
Quite simply you and the other spinners haven’t really been paying attention to the experiments right in front of you choosing instead to blindly believe your daddy like a fawning sycophant when that easy test was sitting right in front of you.
“If the planet/moon is spinning on its internal axis that means the particles are traveling on an elliptical path around its own COG.”
Huh? You are off your rocker!
The point is a rotation about an external axis is good model for the motion of many things, like an ant sitting on a record being played, or material in a centrifuge.
But not for planetary orbits.
But instead accepting that this model is defined the way it is, and has its uses, you decide you can ignore the definitions, and make it work for planetary orbits too!
And the purpose of this? To post-hoc rationalize your lunar beliefs.
Ridiculous.
Nate says:
”If the planet/moon is spinning on its internal axis that means the particles are traveling on an elliptical path around its own COG.”
Huh? You are off your rocker!
——————————–
Nate denies that gravity produces tides on rotating objects. I guess that makes you in denial of the science behind ”tidal locking”. You really need to restrict you posting to non-substance abuse hours.
Nate says:
The point is a rotation about an external axis is good model for the motion of many things, like an ant sitting on a record being played, or material in a centrifuge.
But not for planetary orbits.
———————
Why?
Nate says:
But instead accepting that this model is defined the way it is, and has its uses, you decide you can ignore the definitions, and make it work for planetary orbits too!
——————–
I am not ignoring any definitions Nate. The fact is that all rotations have perturbations from gravity that change the so-called rigid objects shape. Don’t blame Madhavi for doing what every great scientist does in defining ”pure” concepts of events.
So the moon is only idealistically a uniform sphere and an orbit is idealistically a circle. When engineers take this they need experience to realize that what you learned in school was basically useful bullshitt.
You obviously never had to face those facts. Engineers have to prepare their designs to withstand not just natures constant forces but the variable ones as well. All you are suggesting is that the budding engineer should abandon all hope in having a basic foundation to build upon. Hopefully you stayed away from such ignorance in teaching your students that they need to be constantly aware of these sorts of things that all need separate analysis. But no way for orbiting moons. You may as well be saying you can’t use rotational physics on them when realistically they have to. You even go so far as to call an orbit linear momentum. I would think that you would do nothing but confuse a student if you actually taught that kind of BS.
And the purpose of this? To post-hoc rationalize your lunar beliefs.
Ridiculous.
“I am not ignoring any definitions Nate. The fact is that all rotations have perturbations from gravity that change the so-called rigid objects shape.”
If YOU PERSONALLY want to call a planetary motion a rotation, or call a frog a toad, or call a crab a bug, or call a bat a bird, go right ahead!
Science will continue to distinguish and categorize things in the usual ways, even if you don’t.
Perturbations happen, and yet the different types of motions can be detected, discriminated, and categorized.
Elliptical orbits CAN BE detected as Kepler did 400 y ago, and clearly distinguished from a motion in which all parts of the body move in concentric circles (ROTATION).
Your denial that different types of motions can be distinguished and categorized is falsified by reality.
Nate I am not personally making up definitions of rotation. My definition comes from Madhavi as outlined below.
Madhavi’s definition of rotation
Ellipses are via Figure 1 and modified by Section 6.0 and Figures 14 thru 16.
It is only you who has not provided a science source defining the motion we are talking about. And I realize you are not the only one who hasn’t. But in the meantime you need to consider it your definition.
I will await you establishing otherwise.
“Madhavis definition of rotation
Ellipses are via Figure 1 and modified by Section 6.0 and Figures 14 thru 16.”
C’mon Bill, there is no definition there.
Why are you trying so hard to deceive people? Are you that desperate?
She VERY CLEARLY defined rotation earlier.
“2. 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).”
There is as much a definition there as any thing you have tried to create a definition out of. She just doesn’t say anywhere that any of her examples are a be all end all definition.
You just cherry pick what you like and leave it at that and don’t consider all she says through the course on the topic. Its like you dropped out of her class after the first day.
“You just cherry pick what you like ”
Just picked the only definition of rotation that she has.
You offer no serious alternative.
If you can’t define rotation differently, then your claims that you know a rotation when you see it, are simply hot air.
If you can’t define the terms you are using, then you are not doing science and no one will be convinced.
Madhavi explains what a rotation is in Section 6. In section 2 she gives an example of how it differs from a translation.
“Madhavi explains what a rotation is in Section 6. In section 2 she gives an example of how it differs from a translation.”
Quote?
Why do you have trouble understanding that an example is not a definition?
A definition should allow anyone to determine if ANY example meets the definition.
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Why is it that I can easily find and quote her defining rotation, while you claim that she defines it differently elsewhere but are unable to find it or quote it.
Cuz you you just shamelessly make it up.
Why do you do that?
No problem Nate. If you can’t comprehend section 6 I understand.
You can personally consider the moon spinning on its own center if you wish. It doesn’t bother me.
There is no new definition of rotation given in section 6.
In section 6 she is defining an ‘instantaneous axis of rotation’, which is convenient in special scenarios, such as a rolling ball.
For a rolling ball it could convenient define an ‘instantaneous axis of rotation’ as being the point of contact with the surface.
But obviously this point of contact changes from one instant to the next!
No one should confuse that ‘instantaneous axis’ with the pure rotation of a body around a fixed external axis.
Earlier she stated that a rolling ball can be described as combo of translation plus rotation.
Nope Nate you still don’t understand Madhavi. She only said ”pure” rotation as being an instantaneous rotation. But all those ”pure” instantaneous rotations (an infinite number of them) mean it is in constant rotation.
Do you want another link that says it more plainly?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15195-9_7
”Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe. The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion. Objects cannot be treated as particles when exhibiting rotational motion since different parts of the object move with different velocities and accelerations. Therefore, it is necessary to treat the object as a system of particles.”
That demolishes your entire suite of arguments in one paragraph.
“Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe…”
The bland quote is completely neutral on our disagreement, Bill.
If you think it ‘demolishes’ any of our arguments, explain how it does that.
What don’t you understand about ”the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion.”
do you have a published reference starting out saying ”the motion of the moon about the earth is an example of translational motion.”?
I didn’t think so!
Completely vague and lacking context. Nothing in there DEFINES rotation.
This the same lame tactic that DREMT uses to mislead people on semantics.
He finds some random vague quote on the internet, takes it out of context, assigns authority status to it, and then IGNORES all other sources that explicitly DEFINE the word of interest.
When are you going to find an actual DEFINITION of rotation that works for your narrative?
Lacking that, this is just your personal semantics, which aint worth diddly squat in science.
Your argument is at a dead end.
Go find a real issue.
Good example here of you ignoring the DEFINITION of rotation in your own source!
“7.2.1 The Rotational Variables
Suppose a rigid body of an arbitrary shape is in pure rotational motion about the
-axis (see Fig. 7.1). Let us analyze the motion of a particle that lies in a slice of the body in the x-y plane as in Fig. 7.2. This particle (at point P) will ROTATE IN A CIRCLE of fixed radius r which represents the perpendicular distance from
to the axis of rotation. If you look at any other particle in the object you will see that EVERY PARTICLE WILL ROTATE IN ITS OWN CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center. In other words, different particles move in different CIRCLES but the center of all of these circles lies on the rotational axis.”
Agrees fully with Madhavi!
It only points at the center of the moon if you become spatially disoriented from the fact that the motion is actually going around the earth.
Sort of like what happened to Kobe’s pilot and JFK Jr.
Nate says:
Completely vague and lacking context. Nothing in there DEFINES rotation.
————————
No need to define rotation with that quote in the science literature he just comes out and says what the moon is doing.
Further if you use Madhavi and apply here method of identifying rotation you will find it is always the case the moon is in rotation around the earth.
and never the case that those lines perpendicular to the velocity vectors of any two particles are ever parallel as you have argued incessantly for the motion of the moon around the earth being a translation.
Case closed.
Self goal Bill.
You provide a source that DEFINES rotation exactly as Madhavi does, and exactly contrary to your beliefs.
Now you can howl at the wind all you want that reality needs to adjust to to fit your beliefs, but it never ever does.
Case long ago closed.
Nate your lack of an argument for your case shows you have no case.
You need to argue with appropriate reference to Madhavi and alrasheed’s descriptions of rotations are contrary to what I believe.
Just stomping your foot like a 2 year old child who wants his way does not make a science argument.
BTW, Rots of ruck in scientifically arguing why Alrasheed’s statement below is contrary to my beliefs Nate.
”Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe. The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion.”
And uh where is your source claiming the moons orbit is a translation? Oh you don’t have one. You have been asked to produce one for years and have never managed to find one.
“alrasheeds descriptions of rotations are contrary to what I believe.”
Now you are just playing dum to keep arguing.
Again:
“7.2.1 The Rotational Variables
Suppose a rigid body of an arbitrary shape is in pure rotational motion about the
-axis (see Fig. 7.1). Let us analyze the motion of a particle that lies in a slice of the body in the x-y plane as in Fig. 7.2. This particle (at point P) will ROTATE IN A CIRCLE of fixed radius r which represents the perpendicular distance from
to the axis of rotation. If you look at any other particle in the object you will see that EVERY PARTICLE WILL ROTATE IN ITS OWN CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center. In other words, different particles move in different CIRCLES but the center of all of these circles lies on the rotational axis.”
So, what do we know from this? We know the Moon’s orbit is not consistent with a rotational motion around a fixed axis.
If you want to NOW ARGUE that the Moon has a perpetually moving ‘instantaneous axis of rotation’ you can, but then that is an admission that ALL YOUR PREVIOUS claims that the Moon is rotating around a fixed axis through the Earth were WRONG.
Go for it.
all you are doing is denying the forces at work in the process AND the actual motion of the particles around the earth.
further the gravitational forces stretching the orbit are also stretching the moon causing the same kind of disconnect of a rotation around a fixed axis. and you want to arbitrarily ignore that fact while attacking the actual motion of the moons particles through gridded space. thus you are willingly or subconsciously allowing your mind to trick you into believing that the moon’s motion is simply around itself by simply pretending that the actual motion of the moon is just another motion when it is in fact the only motion.
” denying the forces at work”
A body is rotating or not, regardless of the causes.
Change of topic, indicating the argument is over and you lost.
the moon is stretched by the sun, jupiter, and saturn as well as being trained by earth and Nate believes the particles of the moon move in perfect circles around the moon’s center. But he is wrong about that in more ways than one.
You are going in circles Bill. All of this has been tried and debunked over and over again.
Gill sincerely believes that non-spinners and spinners are not debating if the Moon spins.
His daddy might disapprove.
Actually Willard if you were paying attention we were debating as to whether anything can rotate on anything other than its internal axis or not. Spinners have been claiming you can only if the rotation is perfectly circular but we know no motion is perfect because all motions are influenced by gravity. So when they claim that they have overstepped the line into non-spinner territory.
And so Gill once again decides what people were discussing before he butted in to peddle his usual talking point about how ellipses are circles.
Deep down Gill believes nobody notices when he does that.
You are not paying attention.
I said all the particles in a rotation all move in ellipses and not circles. A circular rotation is like a blackbody that emits perfect emissions according to SB Law. . .namely there is no such thing in nature known as a circular rotation. Rotating objects have particles changing shapes in elliptical patterns, every single one of them except the one on the axis which is a point mass and thus doesn’t rotate in either a circle or an ellipse unless its orbiting another axis.
It’s not about what you said, Gill.
It’s about you butting in an exchange between Mighty Tim and Puffman and decide that what they are talking about is what you decide they should talk about.
So you thought Tim needed help? Tim does far better than you do.
We all know you cannot compete with Mighty Tim on physics, Gill.
Why do you also need to display your lack of editorial skills?
Binny,
You wrote –
“This is, in decimal days, 27.321665 days: until five digits after the decimal point, exactly the same value as that computed nowadays (27.321661 days).”
Yes, that is the orbital period with respect to the fixed stars, that’s why it’s called the sidereal rotation period.
From the Earth, you only see one face of the Moon as it falls continuously towards the Earth – called “the near side”.
Who is disputing Mayer’s results? Not me. You just don’t understand what they mean.
ent…”You cant explain your non-rotating Moon theory”.
***
I have explained it over and over and not one of you spinners has been able to refute it using equivalent science. So have other non-spinners produced equally viable theories. Not one of you spinners have yet explained how the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Even NASA has not produced a scientific explanation for the same theory. In one hilarious video, they passed off the motion of shadows cast by the Sun as proof of rotation.
“Not one of you spinners have yet explained how the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.”
Actually it is the other way around. The same face only APPROXIMATELY points at earth. Not one of you non-spinners have yet explained liberation in a way the matches observation.
Folkerts, is that all you’ve got — semantics?
Nit picking ain’t science.
Where’s your model of “orbital motion without spin”, that works? You don’t appear to understand orbital motion, AT ALL.
At least you’re now tr0lling. That’ll keep you off the streets….
Tim,
You wrote –
“The same face only APPROXIMATELY points at earth. Not one of you non-spinners have yet explained liberation in a way the matches observation.”
I assume you mean “libration”, and which form of libration are you talking about?
Optical librations are easily explained, and I would be surprised if you have not already looked up the explanations on the internet.
The reasons for some physical librations are a mystery. I guess you are trying to make people who disagree with you look stupid by innuendo. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You appear to be saying that because you cannot explain some physical librations, your ignorance is somebody else’s fault!
Everything in science is an approximation, strangely enough. Nobody has ever found an exception to the uncertainty principle, and I doubt you will be the first. Nothing is certain.
That’s reality.
Mike Flynn,
You appear to be saying that because you do not know that Team Science’s explanation of libration, it’s somebody else’s fault.
The reality is that Moon Dragon cranks can’t take libration into account with your ball-on-string silliness.
Whiny Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You appear to be saying that because you do not know that Team Sciences explanation of libration, its somebody elses fault.”
There is no “Team Science”. That’s a figment of your imagination.
Nobody can explain some observed physical librations.
This makes you appear to be not just a troll, but an ignorant troll to boot!
What a donkey you are!
Mike Flynn,
Draconic month.
The name “draconic” refers to a mythical dragon, said to live in the lunar nodes and eat the Sun or Moon during an eclipse.
Dragon cranks live at Roy’s and keep denying the obvious.
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
“The Moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 to the ecliptic but it is not fixed in space. It has a slow variation which causes the two nodes to regress around the ecliptic every 18.61 years. Consequently the draconic month (27.2122 days) is about 2.5 hours shorter than the sidereal month”. You can look up the source if you feel inclined.
I can’t see any mention of dragons. Maybe you are thinking of GHE cultists, also known as believers in SkyDragons, whose fiery CO2 powered breath will make the Earth uninhabitable!
Complete nonsense, of course. The GHE is a mythic concept, based on fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Are you deaf or blind? Who cares what you refuse to see?
Draconic. Not draconitic.
“Optical librations are easily explained, and I would be surprised if you have not already looked up the explanations on the internet.”
Indeed Mike, and the explanation employs the Spinner model.
So you are not helping your looney friends.
They also employ the non-spinner model. As usual Nate is trying to turn a non-distinction into a distinction because his daddy told him to.
the only distinction is in the non-spinner model where physics calculation match up to all rotations on external axes and not just ones in imaginary perfect circles.
fact is an orbiting body is elementally analogous to any rotation on an external axis, circular or elliptical. Both can be broken down into a conceptual translation along with a spin on the central axis of the rigid object. But Nate wants to make a non-distinction a distinction because his daddy told him to.
> the non-spinner model where physics calculation
Where is that model?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Not even a good try.
Why? Do you think Georgia State University doesn’t know physics?
Bill seems to realize he cannot win this argument with the actual facts.
So he gets caught shamelessly making up sh*t again.
now nate is disputing that http://www.gsu.edu isn’t the website of Georgia State University as that and the model i am using both come from there.
these guys are really getting desperate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
An equation for momentum does not a model of the motion of the Moon make.
Gill should not be posting loaded.
Bill is showing a point particle in an elliptical orbit from the Univ of GA, and is weirdly claiming it is explaining libration in some way with a non-spinner model.
It isn’t doing that. At all.
So Bill lies about us insulting the Univ of GA, which, of course, we are not doing.
The point is, ONLY with a body orbiting at a variable rate in an elliptical orbit, AND ALSO spinning on its own axis at a constant rate, can libration be explained.
And in the case of our Moon, the axial tilt also contributes to the libration. Which cannot exist without axial spin.
Nate says:
Bill is showing a point particle in an elliptical orbit from the Univ of GA, and is weirdly claiming it is explaining libration in some way with a non-spinner model.
It isnt doing that. At all.
So Bill lies about us insulting the Univ of GA, which, of course, we are not doing.
The point is, ONLY with a body orbiting at a variable rate in an elliptical orbit, AND ALSO spinning on its own axis at a constant rate, can libration be explained.
And in the case of our Moon, the axial tilt also contributes to the libration. Which cannot exist without axial spin.
———————-
Thats all a false claim as astronomy considers libration to not be a motion but instead a perspective. So obviously the model doesn’t need to add in a motion to be realistic. Aik it needs to do is plant yer arse in a place where you are likely to observe the libration.
And there there is Madhavi whose definitions of rotations doesn’t care if the rotation changes speed or direction per Section 6 and the discussion of using instantaneous centers to define a pure rotation at that point in time.
and to save time. Even if there were a force to create an actual libration of the moon. It would still be a rotation around the earth simply at a different speed.
Any rotation on the moon’s central axis has to occur from some other force not dependent on earth.
“Thats all a false claim as astronomy considers libration to not be a motion but instead a perspective. So obviously the model doesnt need to add in a motion to be realistic.”
Nothing obvious about it. The observations of libration are from the Earth perspective, but still require an explanation.
And NO explanation of libration, without including axial spin, is provided.
Apparently there is NO such explanation.
What explanation are you looking for Nate?
The moon is traveling a path with constant angular momentum so the logic you are claiming, to make libration a motion (if you are claiming that), changes angular momentum by sucking long ”r” energy and converting it to short ”r” energy back and forth.
But you also acknowledge that the short ”r” energy doesn’t change.
So perspective completely explains libration as a non-motion and if perspective change is all its is, then there is no physical reason to bring it up to argue for an independent motion on the COM of the moon.
So if you aren’t arguing for an independent spin motion on the moon via libration. . .what are you arguing for?
Still NO explanation of libration given here, Bill. Just evasion.
The fact that you have none should be like a bright flashing Neon sign telling you that your TMDNS model is inadequate to explain what we observe.
What else is it you want to know about it being a perspective rather than a motion? Perspectives command observations from the distant stars and you obviously are not claiming you see it from there.
I have pointed out that perspective changes from outside a rotation to inside a rotation. But that is all that changes.
> And there there is Madhavi
On rigid bodies, yes.
Is the Moon a rigid body?
Obviously not if it can be deformed. You are pointing to an idealism taking the word circular out of context of a single example. Section 6 sets the definition of rotation as anything except a motion that includes an object is traveling in a straight line and/or has a line drawn between any 2 particles in an object not changing orientation.
Obviously the elliptical motion of the moon qualifies as a rotation.
Of course none of that rules out analyzing some part of the moon’s motion in a different manner. In fact that was the brilliance of Newton to reduce mathematically complex motions.
“What else is it you want to know about it being a perspective rather than a motion?.”
The word ‘perspective’ is not a ‘get out of jail free card’ that relieves one from explaining libration.
Libration is a measurable change in the orientation of the Moon relative to the Earth.
The Moon does not keep the same face to the Earth! The Moon’s poles also wobble wrt the Earth.
Our point is that you have not explained, and cannot explain, these effects WITHOUT using two different motions, ORBIT and SPIN.
All you have done is try to diminish or dismiss this as a problem, and thus evade having to explain it.
Nate I don’t profess to be an expert as to the mathematics of these motions. all I have seen is a consistent references to these variations being due to gravitational fields and have never seen one that specifies a different factor at work.
You say it is due to the spin of the moon. But spin is a loose concept that would seem to have the same effects from the moon spinning around the earth.
We know the earth’s perceived axis is related to an independent spin modified by a spin around the sun at a ratio of 365.25 to 1.
Applying the same ratio of the moon’s independent spin to its spin around the earth is 0 to 1.
Your notion is built on a pair of motions that are incompatible with each other, and such a motion simply cannot forever exist without an independent motor.
I am willing to read any source you have on the matter. Please contribute if you have something. Otherwise I am not going to give any more of my time to thinking about it.
OK so clearly you don’t have an explanation for libration without including axial spin.
As you falsely claimed existed:
“They also employ the non-spinner model. As usual Nate is trying to turn a non-distinction into a distinction because his daddy told him to”
Nate says:
December 26, 2023 at 3:05 PM
OK so clearly you dont have an explanation for libration without including axial spin.
——————–
Libration isn’t a motion Nate. All one needs to account for is the motion as the motion is, which is matter for the orbit of accounting for rotational motion. You seem to want me to account for the orbital motion as being a skater running in a straight line. Thats nonsense.
Your arguments are disingenuous and dependent upon dual standards. What you want to do is hold the moon’s rotation that non-spinners advocate to an idealistic standard established by SIR.
Then you flipflop and consider the earths particles which travel in an elliptical path for 365.25 rotations per year and you acknowledge at least 365.25 spins of the earth on its own axis.
but one rotation the bulges of the moon don’t move through all the particles of the moon. so the particles will appear to be circular around the center of the earth.
interesting huh a perfect circle probably indicates that a rotation isn’t occurring around that axis.
the gravity that stretches the moon is actually the signature of where the axis is located.
but no you are good with double standards.
You even acknowledge you know nothing meets these idealistic standards and then you should know that no arguments of that nature holds any water at all. Yet you persist.
I have acknowledged that the elliptical orbit theoretically moves the moon out of alignment. But thats not libration. Libration comes from other planets and the sun stretching the moon’s orbit. The sun and the other planets also account for the axial tilt of the moon. And the sun and the other planets also stretch the moon.
And in the real world the most precision ball bearings used in rotating devices have clearances that allow misalignment. Higher quality bearings have tighter clearances that lesser quality. these clearances allow different levels of chatter or vibrations as external forces work on the rotation. and clearance is necessary to have them work.
but you aren’t going to stop calling them rotations or are you?
that reflects very poorly on the quality of your arguments as no amount of chatter or vibration is going to change any element of the moon’s motion into a straight line and that’s what stops your argument dead in the water.
“All one needs to account for is the motion as the motion is..”
In your prior post you admitted that you did not know how to account for it!
You are all over the place, Bill.
Bill you shamelessly claim you KNOW things that you obviously don’t know at all.
If you can’t come up with the specifics of how libration occurs, or find a source that does so, then you have NO BUSINESS claiming you KNOW it can be done without axial rotation!
Sure I can Nate I just follow Madhavi’s instructions of how to find the center.
You I am sure can find a different center by intentionally causing your perception to become spatially disoriented but that is what likely killed JFK Jr and his wife and his sister-in-law. Its also likely what killed Kobe Bryant and his daughter and many other passengers of pilots who also killed themselves because they weren’t qualified to fly in such conditions where they could become spatially disoriented.
Sorry I intended this to be the first video with demos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY3LYQv22qY
posted wrong place.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586835
“Optical librations are easily explained, and I would be surprised if you have not already looked up the explanations on the internet.”
Yes. But the physics model (aka “spinner model”) based on conservation of angular momentum gives results that accurately agree with observations. The non-physics model (aka “non-spinner model”) can only get close to the correct results through careful fudging.
I’ll take a model based on first principles every time.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Yes. But the physics model (aka spinner model) based on conservation of angular momentum gives results that accurately agree with observations.”
Total strawman! You are implying that the non-spinner model doesn’t conserve angular momentum when all of vetted science knows it does.
There is no first principle argument that favors either model.
Bill claims: “Total strawman! You are implying that the non-spinner model doesnt conserve angular momentum when all of vetted science knows it does.”
The non-spinner model as usually presented does NOT conserve angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum gives very precise predictions about libration. Non-spinners generally give all sorts of other predictions, which means those predictions are at odds with conservation of angular momentum.
What precisely is “orbital motion without rotation” to non-spinners?
** It is not “a stretchy string” with one side always facing straight to the earth”.
** It is not “a car on a track” with one side always facing the direction of travel.
These are the two obvious answers, and neither conserves angular momentum.
Tim Folkerts says:
”The non-spinner model as usually presented does NOT conserve angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum gives very precise predictions about libration. Non-spinners generally give all sorts of other predictions, which means those predictions are at odds with conservation of angular momentum.”
BS. Spinners say all kinds of crazy things too.
Rather than just declaring this please be specific about what you are claiming here. i.e.
”Non-spinners generally give all sorts of other predictions, which means those predictions are at odds with conservation of angular momentum” and what your evidence is that that is generally the position of non-spinners.
Instead of meet the challenge, Gill sealions.
Well Tim should show some evidence of his ”science” claim or its not science.
Actually is a simple exercise in logic to see that libration isn’t predictable from conservation of momentum.
First the moon orbits with constant angular momentum. If the alleged lunar spin also conserves angular momentum then so to must the orbit.
Second, the moon is either accelerating toward earth or decelerating away from earth. And at both apogee and perigee the moon’s face is perpendicular as in a circular orbit looking straight at the COM of earth. . .thus one can deduce that the moon’s face that faces earth at apogee and perigee is always perpendicular to it velocity vector. Thus there is nothing that could take from or add to its angular momentum despite having an observable libration from earth.
“Thus there is nothing that could take from or add to its angular momentum …”
Exactly! The orbital angular momentum is constant, resulting an elliptical path with constant area swept in constant time. The spin angular momentum is constant, resulting in uniform rotation rate.
That is exactly the position taken by physics/astronomy/NASA/engineers.
“Actually is a simple exercise in logic to see that libration isnt predictable from conservation of momentum.”
Well, we just did the simple exercise in logic and physics, and we get the exact prediction of libration. The changing angular speed of the orbit contrasted with the constant angular speed of the axial rotation causes libration.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Well, we just did the simple exercise in logic and physics, and we get the exact prediction of libration. The changing angular speed of the orbit contrasted with the constant angular speed of the axial rotation causes libration.”
But you claimed it was angular momentum that wasn’t conserved. Angular speed is not angular momentum.
Hunter tr0ll wrote stuff, including:
Yes, at apogee and perigee, the Moon’s velocity vector is perpendicular to the orbit’s major axis. But, that fact does not imply that the view from the Earth is the same at both locations.
Astronomers long ago defined Latitude/Longitude coordinates for the Moon. If your conjecture is correct, the longitude of the intersection with the Moon’s major axis would be the same at both locations. Perhaps you can provide evidence of this, since I feel lazy this morning.
OK, looking around on the ‘NET, we find that:Because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, its distance from Earth and its speed in orbit both change slightly throughout the month. The Moons rate of rotation around its own axis, though, always stays the same.
When the Moon is at its closest to Earth and moving most quickly along its orbital path, the Moon itself doesnt rotate quite fast enough to keep entirely the same side facing us, and we get to see a little more of the eastern side of the Moon. When the Moon is farthest from Earth and orbiting at its slowest, its rotation gets a little ahead, and we see a bit more of its western side. We call this motion libration in longitude.
Yes thats correct.
The point I have been making is these variations including the elliptical nature of the orbit is driven by gravity of other bodies in the universe. If the moon orbited around the earth in a universe with only the moon and the earth the orbit would be circular.
But its not because of the sun, jupiter, saturn, etc.
What you don’t want to see is that rotations on external axes are all affected by gravity and the amount depends upon the less than perfect rigidity of all materials that stretch and bend when forces are applied to them.
Science is built around idealistic situations that are never mirrored in the real world. Black bodies, rigid objects, etc.
There are no black bodies, there are no perfectly rigid bodies. thus trying to draw scientific lines in various ways between the ideal scientific standard and real objects is just arbitrary.
My attention to his was drawn during my experience training as an auditor. We regarded transactions recorded incorrectly based upon the way it was described as opposed to its actual impact as elevating form over substance.
the substance is that according to Madhavi, Section 6, an orbit is a rotation. In fact any object that doesn’t have elements of that object traveling in a straight line is a rotation and objects that have both translations and rotations going on are classified as either a general plane motion or a curvilinear translation.
So that leaves us with two choices for the moons motion either it is 2 or more rotations each occurring on a different axis or its one rotation.
So this is where DREMTs CSAI Truther video steps in. it rules via experiment unless of course somebody can produce something else that breaks that rule.
and so far the only think purported to break that rule is in the imagination where one can draw pictures of a translating moon on top of a spinning moon where particles of the moon are allowed to travel two different paths simultaneously. . . which obviously can only occur in the imagination. . .and as such there is no better illustration of elevating form over substance.
“the substance is that according to Madhavi, Section 6, an orbit is a rotation.”
There is no such statement in Madhavi.
This is a shameless lie.
Madhavi went through all the motions Nate and every other kind of motion had at least one element of the object going in a straight line. The moon has zero elements going in a straight line and every pair of points through out its orbit has an instantaneous center.
And the only way you can make that instantaneous center point at the center of the moon is if you ignore the orbital motion, thereby treating it as a second motion. . .which we already know to be an unphysical hack because you still need to consider that motion and then you have two incompatible motions.
“There is no such statement in Madhavi.
This is a shameless lie.”
And it would be exceedingly simple to rebut this with a direct quote from Madhavi.
But as so often is the case, you cannot.
“n is if you ignore the orbital motion, thereby treating it as a second motion. . .which we already know to be an unphysical hack because you still need to consider that motion and then you have two incompatible motions.”
Incompatible why?
It makes little sense to try to FORCE a general plane motion into being something that it is not: a pure rotation or a pure translation.
I really don’t see why anyone should have a problem understanding that a planar motion that doesnt fit the definition of a pure rotation, or a pure translation, can still be described as a COMBINATION of the two.
We know that this is EXACTLY how Madhavi and others define a General Plane Motion.
Then we additionally have the fact that the Moon has an out-of-plane rotation on its axis.
Sorry Nate you are just a bald faced liar. Here you are telling me you can’t read Madhavi and realize she covered the entire range of planar motions possible and the only motion that the moon’s motion can fall under is a rotation.
Very clearly elliptical motion fits under the instantaneous center standard established in Section 6:
”If the direction of velocity VA of
point A is known and also the direction of velocity VB is known in Fig. 14, the intersection of lines drawn perpendicular to VA and VB fixes the instantaneous centre I. At that instant the body can be taken as rotating about that point”
the only way you can make that centre at the moon’s center is to completely ignore the moon’s actual motion by erasing the reference point around which the motion is moving to create spatial disorientation in the viewer.
Hunter the Tr0ll continues to ignore the basic facts of the moon’s rotation while following an elliptical orbit. His latest confusion is shown by his post about Madhavi’s course notes, which he quotes as:
Hunter then jumps off the cliff, writing:
Hunter can’t grasp the meaning of the words “instantaneous centre”, instead moving to the notion that the Moon is in fact rotating about some fixed “reference point”. Madhavi’s statement does not define a fixed point of rotation which is valid for the entire orbit, only the apparent point of rotation at some instant during the orbit. Hunter and the No-Spin cult can’t understand the difference, so they slog on forever distorting reality.
The Moon rotates once an orbit, as NASA pointed out in my previous post.
Well Swanson if you can’t wrap your head around the implication of an infinite series of two random points on an ellipse saying within the context of Madhavi’s lecture perhaps this will be a bit easier for you to comprehend.
”Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe. The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion. Objects cannot be treated as particles when exhibiting rotational motion since different parts of the object move with different velocities and accelerations. Therefore, it is necessary to treat the object as a system of particles.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15195-9_7
Swanson said it well, Bill, you are fixated on the word ‘rotation’ for some inexplicable reason, and wanting to equate ‘instantantaneous axis of rotation’ with ‘rotation around a fixed external axis’, and they are obviously not the same thing!
And of course the ‘instantaneous axis of rotation’ for an elliptical orbit would be constantly moving, not fixed on the focus of an elliptical orbit.
And the ‘instantaneous axis of rotation’ for the Moon, since its rotation is out-of- plane, may well be a point outside the orbital plane.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1581996
“Sorry Nate you are just a bald faced liar. Here you are telling me you cant read Madhavi and realize she covered the entire range of planar motions possible and the only motion that the moons motion can fall under is a rotation.”
Bill you are melting down, lashing out, and saying nonsensical things.
Once again, she made it abundantly clear that a motion that is neither a pure rotation (as she defined it) nor a pure translation (as she defined it) is a General Plane Motion.
Clearly the Moon’s motion is neither one nor the other.
But again this is you not wanting to live with reality, so distorting it, to force it to conform to your beliefs.
Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe. The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion. Objects cannot be treated as particles when exhibiting rotational motion since different parts of the object move with different velocities and accelerations. Therefore, it is necessary to treat the object as a system of particles.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15195-9_7
You didn’t address this. If you read the source you are saying that for a rotation to be a rotation it must be a pure rotation. Thats total BS because there is no such thing as anything rotating in ”pure” rotation because there are no absolutely rigid rotations.
Again you selectively wish to hold non-spinner rotations to a completely unachievable standard that no rotation can meet. Then you hypocritically ignore the fact that the rotation you want also does not meet that standard and further ignore you must spatially disorient your perception in order to believe the instantaneous center of the moon’s motion is the center of the moon. Thank God you aren’t a pilot.
Hunter tr0ll offers another reference and tosses out a quote from it. He may not have noticed, but at the beginning of his reference, the author notes:
Hunter (and his no-spin buddies) still doesn’t understand that rotation of a free body must be considered in an inertial reference frame. A coordinate system fixed at the Earth’s COM wrt the Sun is not an inertial reference frame and the same is true for a coordinate system fixed in the Moon’s COM with one axis pointing toward the Earth. Both coordinate systems are rotating wrt the stars.
Of course, he refuses to acknowledge these facts and also the fact that while the Moon may appear to “rotate” around an external axis at some instant along it’s orbit, at other points, a different instantaneous point results.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
obviously swanson is falling behind the rest of the class. the reference frame issue is a non-starter as every curved motion appears the same observed from the convex side of the arc and differently from the concave side.
thus all you need to know is which side you are on. apparently swanson can’t figure out which side he is on.
also he suffers from spatial disorientation in trying to figure out what the moons motion actually is and thus doesn’t know how to follow madhavi’s directions on how to find the correct center.
i will give you a clue. every particle of the moon is rotating counterclockwise around the earth as viewed from north of its orbital plane. hope that helps.
“every particle of the moon is rotating counterclockwise around the earth as viewed from north of its orbital plane. hope that helps.”
FALSE, according to your OWN source:
“f you look at any other particle in the object you will see that EVERY PARTICLE WILL ROTATE IN ITS OWN CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center.”
since obviously NONE of the Moon’s particles is ‘rotating in its own CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center’ which is through the Earth.
But go ahead and keep on trying to bend reality to fit your beliefs.
Nate says:
”every particle of the moon is rotating counterclockwise around the earth as viewed from north of its orbital plane. hope that helps.”
FALSE, according to your OWN source:
f you look at any other particle in the object you will see that EVERY PARTICLE WILL ROTATE IN ITS OWN CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center.
since obviously NONE of the Moons particles is rotating in its own CIRCLE that has the axis of rotation at its center which is through the Earth.
But go ahead and keep on trying to bend reality to fit your beliefs.
———————–
nothing is rotating in circles nate. everything is stretched by the gravity of additional objects outside the center of any axis you choose. all you want to do is celebrate the little bit of education you have received to selectively ignore that truth to believe in a different motion than the real motion. and the only way you can do that is by spatially disorienting yourself. and your theory can only survive if you cling desperately to your self disorientation and believe the false belief that gravity only stretches orbits and not objects.
dremt’s truther video demonstrates the real facts and the libration you complain about is visually eliminated by arms that simply stretch less.
for at least a year i have been making this point and it has to be the case that you simply want to ignore it and play ”perfection” games where the rules only apply to the other side of the argument.
“nothing is rotating in circles nate”
Sure Bill, there are no circles in the world, nor are there octagons or hexagons, or pentagons.
There are only polygons.
Endless silliness from you.
"Hunter (and his no-spin buddies) still doesn’t understand that rotation of a free body must be considered in an inertial reference frame. A coordinate system fixed at the Earth’s COM wrt the Sun is not an inertial reference frame and the same is true for a coordinate system fixed in the Moon’s COM with one axis pointing toward the Earth. Both coordinate systems are rotating wrt the stars."
Swanson, the coordinate system everyone is using is fixed at the Earth’s COM wrt the stars, not wrt the Sun. Both the reference frames you have tossed out as ones we’re using are straw men. Why would you do that?
DREMT confirms DREMT is using a non-inertial frame.
Call it what you want, it’s not a rotating reference frame…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
This might help educate Ball4.
So, Hunter posts some more unscientific stuff, having failed to “audit” his reference. He even throws in a reference to that nut job dremt’s “truther video”.
Hunter, did you read the entire book before Chapter 7? I think you didn’t, so you missed this part from Chapter 3:
None of your rambling mentions inertial reference frames and the fact that representing angular rotations must be done using such coordinates. The Earth is continually subjected to gravitational forcing from the Sun, so an a reference frame centered on the Earth can not be an inertial frame
You (and grammie) don’t bother to do the math, where gravity causes the moving Moon to follow an elliptical path. The rotation of the Moon does not need to be specified for the orbit to be defined this way. Besides, as Ball4 points our, the Moon’s orbit is tilted wrt the ecliptic, which is another can of worms for you guys to figure out. If you can’t the math and “prove” your conjectures, give it up.
Of course, the Moon’s rotation is tidally locked to the Earth, but that does not imply that the viewer from the Earth sees exactly the same side at each Full Moon during the Earth’s orbit of the Sun. The facts of the Moon’s Libration in Longitude and the tilt of it’s rotational axis wrt the orbital plane prove that the Moon rotates around a axis thru it’s COM, not an external one.
“The Earth is continually subjected to gravitational forcing from the Sun, so an a reference frame centered on the Earth can not be an inertial frame”
…and yet, it can:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
Swanson is wrong again…
…and, what’s more, most of the “Spinners” who think the issue is resolved by reference frames are thinking of an inertial reference frame centred on the moon when they declare it as “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame”.
WRT to the other point Swanson brought up:
”Of course, the Moons rotation is tidally locked to the Earth, but that does not imply that the viewer from the Earth sees exactly the same side at each Full Moon during the Earths orbit of the Sun. The facts of the Moons Libration in Longitude and the tilt of its rotational axis wrt the orbital plane prove that the Moon rotates around a axis thru its COM, not an external one.”
Swanson failed to grasp the main point of the post I wrote wrt to the incessant argument of his and other spinners about libration arising from the orbit being stretched and claiming a non-circular elliptical rotation is not a rotation.
The fact is that gravity does not only stretch orbits but it stretches the orbiting body such that it has tides identical to a stretched orbit.
That means the particles of the moon rotating around the center of the moon also do not travel in a circle but instead travel around the moon in a elliptical orbit presenting libration to the center of the moon just as surely does an orbiting body following an elliptical path. So their complaint about that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Its a non-starter argument and it doesn’t survive the sources I provided either.
It is in fact Swanson’s failure to recognize that SIR is an unattainable standard created for approximations of motions before mounting his lack of perfection argument. But depending upon your job some folks may still need to consider the action of the tides in completing their mission.
So what we have here is nothing more than a bunch of underachieving wannabe technocrats whom simply ignore and often deny the unintended consequences of their lines of reasoning.
“The fact is that gravity does not only stretch orbits but it stretches the orbiting body such that it has tides identical to a stretched orbit.”
Bill makes another nonsensical claim, lacking evidence.
If he were being scientific, he would need to be QUANTITATIVE. And if he did, he would realize that the orbital radius ‘stretches’ by 11 % from maximum to minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
While the Moon’s radius is stretched by tidal forces by a negligible percentage: 0.0003 %
“The corresponding distorting effect on the moon, called the lunar body tide, is more difficult to see, because the moon is solid except for a molten core. But Earth’s pull raises a small bulge about 20 INCHES (50 centimeters) from the surface on the near side of the moon and a matching bulge on the far side.”
Furthermore, the bulge is approximately in a FIXED location on the Moon. Thus the particles of the Moon do not change their radius during each rotation.
Thus they rotate around the lunar COM in circles.
So his entire scenario is bogus.
Correction, should have had one more 0.
the Moons radius is stretched by tidal forces by a negligible percentage: 0.00003 %
nate declares an exception to the perfect circle rule. uh do you have a source that reclassifies a motion from a rotation to a translation based on your theory here nate? what counts and what doesn’t count? and why?
Nate says:
”Furthermore, the bulge is approximately in a FIXED location on the Moon. Thus the particles of the Moon do not change their radius during each rotation.”
the tidal bulge attributable to the body’s orbit is only fixed when rotation around its center of mass no longer exists. but the tidal bulges from the sun continues to rotate around the moon due to the moon’s tidal locked rotation around the earth.
And of course the simplest explanation for the bulge caused by earth’s gravity not moving is . . .and it should be obvious any person who does his own thinking. . .the moon isn’t spinning on its center of gravity.
Sorry Bill, your ridiculous ‘there are no differences between circular and elliptical orbits’ was falsified by Kepler and Newton.
“nate declares an exception to the perfect circle rule.”
No such rule. You created that strawman.
As explained many times, there are plenty of motions for which a circular model is the BEST fit, such as rotation of a rigid body around its COM.
Then there are plenty of other motions for which an elliptical orbit is the BEST fit. Others a parabola.
In the real world, none of these will be perfect. And yet we can distinguish between these types of motion.
Nate says:
Sorry Bill, your ridiculous there are no differences between circular and elliptical orbits was falsified by Kepler and Newton.
——————–
try a little harder to stay focused Nate. I just said an elliptical orbit was stretched by gravitation pull of other objects in the universe.
Nate says:
”nate declares an exception to the perfect circle rule.”
No such rule. You created that strawman.
—————-
Now Nate accepts an elliptical orbit as a rotation. Congratulations Nate you are making excellent progress.
Nate says:
As explained many times, there are plenty of motions for which a circular model is the BEST fit, such as rotation of a rigid body around its COM.
Then there are plenty of other motions for which an elliptical orbit is the BEST fit.
———————-
Where do you drawn the line of what a best fit is?
Nate says:
Others a parabola.
—————————
What objects in the universe are in parabola motion Nate?
Nate says:
In the real world, none of these will be perfect. And yet we can distinguish between these types of motion.
————————–
but you already argued that a circle is an ellipse with an eccentricity factor of zero. that seems pretty perfect to me.
Are you saying rotations can be particles flying around around in non-circular parabola’s and ellipses?
I mean we have that paper that says: ”The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15195-9_7
You haven’t provided any support nor even defined a rotation yet as something less than a ellipse with an eccentricity of zero. Now that you have conceded that argument was false please provide your definition along with a source to back it up.
Grammie gives us a reference from Wiki that points out that the Earth can be used for the center of an inertial reference frame in some instances, suggesting that this proves his no-spin cult’s claims about the Moon rotating around an external axis. But, the article gives an example of such a reference frame based on the plane of the Ecliptic. The Moon’s orbital plane is tilted wrt the Plane of the Ecliptic, thus, his usual representation of the Moon’s orbit as a 2-dimensional motion around a circle would be inappropriate.
The article doesn’t mention the fact that the orbits of even near Earth satellites, such as the Sun synchronous orbits of the NOAA satellites carrying Roy’s MSU/AMSU instruments, can not be described as simple ellipses fixed wrt the Earth based system. The effects of the Sun’s gravity on these satellites causes the orbits to continually change causing the satellites to cross the Equator at the same time of day on the ground. For these problems, another reference frame, such as one fixed at the center of the Sun, may be selected.
Hunter the tr0ll wanders aimlessly along, ignoring the basic question about whether the Moon rotates on it’s own axis or around some other external one. Now, he’s excited about the distortion of the Moon by the Earth’s gravitational pull, which, as Nate points out, results in a very small deviation from a sphere. Next, he drifts further off into another attempt to define the word “rotation” to include translation motion around an elliptical orbit. In the end, he still can’t provide any sort of proof to support the no-spin cult’s conjecture that the Moon actually rotates around that their mythical external axis.
E. Swanson says:
Now, hes excited about the distortion of the Moon by the Earths gravitational pull, which, as Nate points out, results in a very small deviation from a sphere.
———————
Now? I have always been aware that the earth rotates on its own axis and that particles of the earth travel around the earth’s com in a ellipse. the fact that gravity stretches everything in the universe is elementary knowledge. And when you stretch a circular motion like an orbit or a spinning spheroid elements of that motion travel in ellipses and not circles.
E. Swanson says:
”Next, he drifts further off into another attempt to define the word rotation to include translation motion around an elliptical orbit.
——————
Well one could certainly design a device to translate around in elliptical orbit but planets are not designed that way. Certainly our moon is not as it doesn’t meet the definition of a translation: ”1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.”
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Section 2
So Swanson your statement above is clearly wrong.
E. Swanson says:
”In the end, he still cant provide any sort of proof to support the no-spin cults conjecture that the Moon actually rotates around that their mythical external axis.”
———————–
thats completely meaningless Swanson all axes in celestial mechanics are mythical. Do you really believe there is a real axle sticking through the middle of the earth?
Nah you don’t believe that you believe all the particles and elements of the earth are translating around a mythical axis through the COM of the earth in a elliptical and non-circular motion around a tidal bulges on opposite sides of the earth pointed at the sun.
“Grammie gives us a reference from Wiki that points out that the Earth can be used for the center of an inertial reference frame in some instances, suggesting that this proves his no-spin cult’s claims about the Moon rotating around an external axis.“
No, I’m suggesting that it proves you wrong when you said that Earth could not be used as the centre of an inertial reference frame. It can…and in fact most “Spinners” who claim that reference frames resolve the moon issue are judging the spin of the moon based on an inertial reference frame centred on the moon itself. However, such a reference frame is misleading, in the same way that a reference frame centred on Mount Everest is misleading. You could convince yourself that Mount Everest is rotating on its own axis once per day, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis! No, Mount Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, not on its own. Centre the reference frame at the COM of Earth and you gain the necessary perspective to “see” that.
The correct reference frame is always centred on the object being orbited, not the orbiting object itself.
Bill demonstrates that his addiction to arguing leads him to endless doubling down on ridiculous assertions.
“Nate says:
nate declares an exception to the perfect circle rule.
No such rule. You created that strawman.
–
Now Nate accepts an elliptical orbit as a rotation. Congratulations Nate you are making excellent progress.”
Bill accidentally admits that his argument was a strawman.
“Nate says:
As explained many times, there are plenty of motions for which a circular model is the BEST fit, such as rotation of a rigid body around its COM.
Then there are plenty of other motions for which an elliptical orbit is the BEST fit.
–
Where do you drawn the line of what a best fit is?”
No lines needed, nitwit. The best fit is the BEST FIT. Look it up if you don’t know what that means.
Scientists make measurements. All measurements have error.
And yet we can distinguish a circular rotation from an elliptical orbit with spin.
As Kepler did for planetary orbits.
A circular motion is the best fit for MANY MANY motions, particularly to those of rigid bodies rotating around their COM.
There is no rationale to deny this, Bill.
“Nate says:
Others a parabola.
What objects in the universe are in parabola motion Nate?”
Ballistic projectiles fired short distances on Earth.
Your repeated assertion that there it is not possible to categorize different shapes and different motions because all are imperfect is deeply flawed logic, and contrary to reality.
Learn to live with the diversity of shapes, Bill.
Learn to live with how a rotation is defined.
nate declares:
A circular motion is the best fit for MANY MANY motions, particularly to those of rigid bodies rotating around their COM.
——————–
yes nate. like the earth rotating on its own axis.
i have provided you sources that say the slightly elliptical orbit is the best fit for our moon. and says so explicitly.
you have avoided responding to that.
from some distant star, the moon has zero rotations on its own com. 1 rotation per month on its orbit of earth, and 1 per year on its orbit of the sun. that is the best fit for our moon.
“I have provided you sources that say the slightly elliptical orbit is the best fit for our moon.”
Great, then you do understand what a ‘best fit’ means.
and what is your opinion and your sources of that opinion with respect to the type of motion that a body orbiting along a slightly elliptical path should be classified as?
Hunter Tr0ll keeps stretching the truth to avoid the obvious facts which prove that the Moon rotates around an axis thru it’s COM. He still insists on ignoring the quote from NASA about the Moon’s Libration in Longitude, as well as hundreds of years of accumulated measurements of the Moon’s motion.
He even goes so fat to miss-quote Madhavi, leaving out the last part which notes:
Worse, he dismisses any mathematical analysis writing:
All analytical efforts in dynamics begin by defining a coordinate system, which is, of course, an imaginary construct. Then, what measurements are possible are referenced to that coordinate system. Translating Hunter’s comments leads us to understand that he rejects any use of coordinates and all mathematical efforts based on them, in effect, rejecting all of the sciences of Astronomy and Newtonian physics.
grammie displays his confusion again, concluding:
By that statement, grammie admits that the Earth can not be used as the center of an inertial reference frame, since the Earth is orbiting the Sun.
He still fails to grasp that translation and rotation are different in that the rotation vector is always defined relative to the stars and the location of the origin, such as the COM or the Earth or the Moon, is irrelevant, as the rotation vector will be the same if the selected reference frames are parallel in all three axes. Orbital motion does not change the instantaneous direction of the rotation vector wrt the stars, though precession occurs due to gravitational forcing over time.
E. Swanson says:
”He even goes so fat to miss-quote Madhavi, leaving out the last part which notes:
If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
———————————-
clearly swanson you are intentionally lying.
” A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. ”
It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.
what line in the moon’s body is keeping the same direction?
mahavi provides figure 2(a) as a visual aid regarding what she means about that for challenged readers.
E. Swanson says:
”He still fails to grasp that translation and rotation are different in that the rotation vector is always defined relative to the stars”
swanson are you lying or are you really challenged by all this.
the moon is rotating! Around the earth! and if you don’t spatially disorient yourself like an airplane pilot on a blacked out night or flying yourself into a fog or a cloud you can see that.
“what line in the moons body is keeping the same direction?”
How is that Bill can still be so confused about what we are claiming?
None of us has claimed that the Moon is not rotating.
Only you have asserted, without evidence, that TMDNS.
"By that statement, grammie admits that the Earth can not be used as the center of an inertial reference frame, since the Earth is orbiting the Sun."
The Earth can be used as the center of an inertial reference frame, Swanson. That has been established beyond any doubt. Yes, the Earth is orbiting the Sun…and if you wished to discuss the rotation of the Earth on its own axis, you would use the Sun as the centre of your inertial reference frame. Since we’re discussing the moon, we use the Earth as the centre instead.
"He still fails to grasp that translation and rotation are different in that the rotation vector is always defined relative to the stars and the location of the origin, such as the COM or the Earth or the Moon, is irrelevant, as the rotation vector will be the same if the selected reference frames are parallel in all three axes. Orbital motion does not change the instantaneous direction of the rotation vector wrt the stars, though precession occurs due to gravitational forcing over time."
The point I made sails over Swanson’s colossally arrogant and condescending head. No, the location of the origin is not irrelevant. Consider the example of Mount Everest I gave, and try again. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
dremt has this well in hand. i will check back tomorrow if i have time.
DREMT 12:56pm, location of observation AND reference frames do completely resolve the moon issue as you have been informed many times for many years.
DREMT 12:56pm, you need the location of observation AND reference frames to completely resolve the moon issue as you have been informed many times for many years.
…wrongly. Location of observation/reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
Hunter (and grammie) repeat their failure to comprehend Newtonian Dynamics. Angular momentum of a free body is defined as rotation wrt the stars. Adding orbital curvilinear motion does not change the definition of angular momentum, which can be described as a vector quantity. The effects of gravity have only minuscule changes on the Moon’s angular momentum as it orbits the Earth.
Hunter wrote:
You are playing word games to distort the physics. Your constant repetition of such empty assertions does not “prove” that they are true and ignores the well known facts acquired from centuries of study in astronomy. The Moon is not “rotating” around the Earth as you continue claim, it is orbiting (a motion in a plane) as it rotates (around an axis thru it’s COM). That axis of rotation is NOT perpendicular to the orbit’s plane, thus it is impossible for the Moon to be rotating around the Earth.
"Angular momentum of a free body is defined as rotation wrt the stars."
Sure, but about which axis? Because Mount Everest is most definitely rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own internal axis. And that is wrt an inertial reference frame centred on the Earth’s COM.
Swanson, I don’t really care about the moon. It could rotate on its own axis, it could not rotate on its own axis. What I care about are my points 1) – 4). Point 3) is that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. That’s correct, and always will be, regardless of who is right, overall, on the moon issue.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter (and grammie) repeat their failure to comprehend Newtonian Dynamics. Angular momentum of a free body is defined as rotation wrt the stars.”
Swanson extends his long record of coming up with revelations that do absolutely nothing to further the debate in any direction.
“Hunter wrote:
‘the moon is rotating! Around the earth!’
“You are playing word games to distort the physics. Your constant repetition of such empty assertions does not prove that they are true”
which is quite correct.
As you earlier admitted, this is pure semantics.
And your personal semantics does not align with that of astronomy, physics or engineering mechanics.
Nate claims without support:
”And your personal semantics does not align with that of astronomy, physics or engineering mechanics.”
Well I don’t expect my semantics would align with much of what you stand for Nate. But I am not interested in semantics and instead in physics and mechanics (star gazing can be fun sometimes too) and so far all those sources agree with the non-spinners, DREMTs 4 points, and the demonstration video.
You have yet to provide a single source that supports your case that the orbital motion of the moon is a translation in any way shape or form.
grammie repeats his usual display of his ignorance:
grammie still can’t grasp the reality of my previous quote: “Newtons first law is often referred to as the law of inertia, where it defines specific kinds of reference frames called inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is a frame in which Newtons first law is valid…Observers in different inertial frames measure the same acceleration for a moving object. ”
Rotation and angular momentum of a free body, such as the Moon, are always measured in an inertial reference frame. Your red herring about Mt. Everest ignores the fact that Mt. Everest is not a free body, but a part of the Earth, which is rotating about an axis which points in a fixed direction, that is, toward the North Star.
The Moon also rotates around an axis which points toward a fixed location in the stars and that axis is not perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. That rotational motion can not be combined with the orbital motion as a single single abound an external axis. You and the rest of teh no-spin cult have never yet provided any analysis, that is to say math, to prove your conjecture while NASA, etc can calculate orbits to great accuracy. How do you think NASA could produce this video without very accurate mathematical representations of the orbits involved?
” But I am not interested in semantics” and instead in physics and mechanics (star gazing can be fun sometimes too)”
The problem is that you keep using the word ‘rotation’ to describe the Moon’s orbit and spin.
And yet you cannot even define the words ‘rotation’ or ‘orbit’.
if you cannot define the words that are central to your claims, then why would you expect to convince anyone that you are correct?
“But I am not interested in semantics and instead in physics and mechanics (star gazing can be fun sometimes too) and so far all those sources agree with the non-spinners, DREMTs 4 points, and the demonstration video.”
False.
The astronomy and astrophysics literature consistently describes the Moon’s motion as a 1-1 spin-orbit resonance.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966AJ…..71..425G
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestialhtml/node75.html
“Let us investigate the spinning motion (i.e., the rotational motion about an axis passing through the center of mass) of an aspherical moon in a Keplerian elliptical orbit about a spherically symmetric planet of mass m”
"Rotation and angular momentum of a free body, such as the Moon, are always measured in an inertial reference frame."
Sure, but rotation about which axis, Swanson?
"Your red herring about Mt. Everest ignores the fact that Mt. Everest is not a free body, but a part of the Earth, which is rotating about an axis which points in a fixed direction, that is, toward the North Star."
Utterly irrelevant to the point being made. You do anything to avoid understanding. Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, not about its own internal axis, wrt an inertial reference frame centred on the Earth. However, if you instead tried to judge its motion wrt a reference frame centred on Mt. Everest itself, you could easily convince yourself that it’s rotating on its own internal axis…and you would be wrong. Can’t you people just think outside the box for a moment, and realise what this means re the moon issue!? The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Nate says:
” ” But I am not interested in semantics and instead in physics and mechanics (star gazing can be fun sometimes too)”
The problem is that you keep using the word rotation to describe the Moons orbit and spin.
And yet you cannot even define the words rotation or orbit.
if you cannot define the words that are central to your claims, then why would you expect to convince anyone that you are correct?”
————————
there is no truth to that. I hold to Madhavi’s descriptions, examples, and classification system. . .expanded upon by Alrasheed.
So the definition of a rotation is essentially all motions that don’t involve a translation.
In recognizing that at the level you desire to define at based upon an SIR for any rotation one has to give some slack between the initial and basic causes of the motion and other forces that ubiquitously act on these motions.
It is in recognition of the effects of a universe filled with forces that states emphatically that SIR is never actually realized and it then boils down to either looking at the primary relationships in a motion instead of focusing on the exceptions. Thats where your argument collapses. You wish to discriminate and pretend no such forces exist for you desired definition and then claim the non-spinner definition because of those same disturbances doesn’t qualify.
You may as well be saying there is no such motion as a rotation if you recognize your own discriminatory behavior.
And both DREMT and I have been saying for years we don’t care how you wish to describe the motions what we are talking about is the objective physical reality not the simplest idealistic symbolic representation of reality. . .from the forces associated with these disturbances must accounted for in the design to have something that will properly and reliably operate within a realm of regular disturbances.
For example in the construction business, the business decision is to build a facility that has high likelihood of surviving for 30 years or more in order to provide payback from the investment. So they often build to a 100 year standard as a 50/50 chance of surviving long enough to pay back in 30 years isn’t a good risk.
The same applies to public works.
There are always aspirations of having your works last forever, but its simply ignorant idealism despite its romantic angle.
Poets sing about this. ”The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed”
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46565/ozymandias
“So the definition of a rotation is essentially all motions that dont involve a translation.”
Still not a definition. Define ‘dont involve a translation’.
A basketball flying to the basket, while spinning. Does it qualify?
A bullet with spin coming at you?
A general plane motion?
“And both DREMT and I have been saying for years we dont care how you wish to describe the motions”
Um. Quite false.
But OK, then we will describe the motion as a translation on an Elliptical Orbit combined with an axial spin on a tilted axis, with a 1-1 Spin-Orbit resonance.
And you can describe it how you want.
“what we are talking about is the objective physical reality not the simplest idealistic symbolic representation of reality.”
All you have done so far is declare that your description of the motion is better.
So that is your semantics is BETTER than ours.
But offer no evidence that your description is objective physical reality.
But I am not interested in semantics and instead in physics and mechanics”
The physical motivation in support of the Spinner Model is that freely moving objects tend to naturally rotate around their center of Mass.
Going back to Galileo, he showed that a projectile, which is a body in motion under the influence only of gravity, follows a parabolic trajectory (path).
And what does it mean for a rigid body to ‘follow a parabolic trajectory’?
It turns out that it is only the COM of the body that follows a smooth parabolic trajectory. If the rest of the body has rotation, than it always consists of a rotation around the COM, which has no impact on the trajectory of the COM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwkoGN1Fz4
Thus when a baseball player strikes out and angerly tosses his bat, its COM consistently follows a smooth parabolic path, while it spins wildly around the COM.
Same situation every time John McEnroe tossed his tennis rackets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwkoGN1Fz4
So to describe planetary motion under the influence of gravity as a smooth trajectory of the COM, the Elliptical Orbit, while the body spins naturally around the COM, is motivated by known physics.
Thus, that is exactly how Newton described planetary orbits.
Oops, I intended this to be the first video with nice demos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY3LYQv22qY
So what are you trying to prove Nate?
The object is tossed and a spin is induced on the object. What our discussion isn’t about a trajectory its about a rotation around the earth in an orbit where spin is removed from the object.
Further there is nothing at all in your demonstration that even hits at the trajectory being a translation.
You said you were interested in the physics. That is what I showed you. The physics experiments and theory finds that freely moving bodies experience an external force as curved trajectory of the COM. And the relative motion of the particles in the rigid body can only be a rotation around the COM.
That is the physics motivation to describe planetary motion that way.
Nate continues to back pedal on his claim that an orbit is a translation.
Sounds like you arE only interested in the physics if it fits your prior beliefs.
“Nate continues to back pedal on his claim that an orbit is a translation.”
Not at all. The bodies in the video, such as tennis rackets are clearly translating AND rotating.
The Moon is doing so as well.
There is no problem.
Yet another source that explains this.
https://www.britannica.com/science/mechanics/Rotation-about-a-moving-axis#ref612205
“Rotation about a moving axis
The general motion of a rigid body tumbling through space may be described as a combination of translation of the bodys centre of mass and rotation about an axis through the centre of mass.”
grammie insists that Mt. Everest can be considered to rotate on it’s own if an inertial reference frame is located at something like it’s COM. He still can’t comprehend that fact that Mt. Everest is not separate from the Earth. He (and also his buddy Bill) obviously doesn’t understand the concept of “Moment of Inertia”. For a Free body, particularly a symmetric body such as the Moon or the Earth, two of the Moment(s) of Inertia will be roughly equal and one will be greater, that last will define the axis of rotation absent external torques.
From the Wilki page section on Angular Momentum:
My point being that Mt. Everest is not at the COM of the Earth and for the angular momentum for the Moon must be calculated around it’s COM. The Moon does not rotate around an external axis.
Oops, I got the part about the three moments of a nearly symmetrical body such as the Earth, two will be greater and the third would be less. The ultimate case would be a thin disk mounted on an axle, the rotation as a fee body would tend to be around the axle.
Slowly-responding condescending prick Swanson can’t understand the simple point being made over and over again, so I will approach it from a different angle.
The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. It’s simply a matter of whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Maybe that is straightforward enough to get through to him.
Whether MOTL or MOTR is “orbit without spin” is completely resolved by stating position of observation thus correctly using ref. frames as in resolving the moon issue.
The fact that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
All wrong, Ball4.
“The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Its simply a matter of whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR.”
So according to DREMT, it IS JUST a matter of semantics, while according to Bill, it is just a matter of physics.
But since no astronomy or physics textbook, nor ordinary dictionary agrees with DREMTS definition of what an ORBIT is, for him it is truly only a matter of his personal semantics.
And the established physics makes absolutely clear that the natural rotations of freely moving rigid bodies are around the COM of THAT BODY.
And it is the trajectory (path) of the COM of the body that curves in response to an external gravitational force.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586835
And thus the ORBIT of a planet is defined only by the path taken by its COM around another body, with no specification of the orientation or rotation of the body as it orbits.
…wrong, Ball4.
Nate claims:
And thus the ORBIT of a planet is defined only by the path taken by its COM around another body, with no specification of the orientation or rotation of the body as it orbits.
————————————–
Yes we get that Nate. But understand that a COM is not an object and thus it is not a motion of an object. And since a planet is an object that we are talking about all you are describing is Newton’s mathematical reduction of the motion of the moon.
One may as well be saying that the angular momentum of the moon is the angular momentum of an object rotating around its own COM plus a large number that sums up to the angular momentum of the moon rotating around the earth.
Thats all fine and good and the way astronomer’s prefer to work with; but it doesn’t match up to kinematics as taught to engineering students. And that pretty much also sums up the non-spinner point of view. We are not off on some crusade to tell you guys you are wrong in doing what you do. We have made that clear. I got into this because of your ad hominem attacks on Nicola Tesla for daring to suggest something akin to the non-spinner position.
Exactly akin to Tesla used conservation of momentum approach to show the moon inertially rotates on its own axis and does not spin on its own axis when observed from Tesla’s location on Earth.
Grow up, Ball4.
Hunter the Tr0ll wrote:
Perhaps Hunter has perhaps forgotten that engineers usually learn Kinematics before they move on to study Dynamics. Dr. Madhavi’s notes focus on “General Plane Motion”, that is to say, motion within a plane. This is usually based on an Earth based coordinate system as a simplification, as few engineers ever need to consider dynamic situations outside the atmosphere, unlike aerospace engineers who DO need to be able to analyze such situations. When one graduates to analysis of extra terrestrial motions of free bodies, including man made satellites, space travel or astronomical bodies, the work REQUIRES the use of inertial reference frames to produce the necessary accuracy.
Since everyone is looking at this problem wrt the same Earth-Centred Inertial (ECI) reference frame, reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
Tesla didn’t use an ECI and got the physically correct answers for lunar spin on its own axis. He showed with conservation of momentum how ref. frames used with location of observation do resolve the moon issue.
Again, the fact that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
Ball4 is a compulsive liar, and a troll.
Ha, laughably DREMT hasn’t ever been able to show Tesla is physically incorrect because the fact is that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
Tesla is a “Non-Spinner” you ridiculous troll.
… since Tesla was located on Earth observing lunar motion from an accelerated frame!
The fact is that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
Tesla was a "Non-Spinner", and his diagrams show that he was visualising the problem wrt an ECI reference frame. Same as everybody else.
What you can never understand is, there are two separate and independent motions being discussed.
1) "Orbit without spin".
2) Spin.
The idea is that "orbit without spin" could be movement like the MOTL, as observed from either outside, or inside, the orbit. Or it could be movement like the MOTR, as observed from either outside, or inside, the orbit. Those are the two options. So, location of observation makes no difference. Movement like the MOTL is still identifiable as movement like the MOTL whether you are observing from inside, or outside, the orbit. Movement like the MOTR is still identifiable as movement like the MOTR whether you are observing from inside, or outside, the orbit.
You can always differentiate between those two different movements, MOTL or MOTR, regardless of location of observation.
“(Tesla’s) diagrams show that he was visualising the problem wrt an ECI reference frame.”
No. If true, DREMT could have linked to Tesla showing an ECI frame. Tesla does not mention ANY ref. frame when discussing lunar motion. DREMT’s ECI is a later modern wiki reference & as such was not shown or discussed in Tesla’s past ~1919 relevant diagrams.
Tesla was located on Earth observing lunar motion from an accelerated frame.
The fact is that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
I didn’t say he mentioned any reference frames, Ball4. You’re the one who’s trying to claim that he did. Not me.
What I said was that if you study his diagrams, you can see he’s visualizing the problem wrt an ECI reference frame…and that’s absolutely correct. His diagrams frequently show an object (representative of Earth) in the centre (at the origin), and, for example, various objects radiating out from that central object on spokes (representative of the moon at various points around the orbit). It’s not difficult to mentally draw in the x,y and z axes of the coordinate system for his diagrams.
He draws no diagrams of the moon as observed from Earth. So there is nothing to support your interpretation.
First DREMT writes 2:21 pm: (Tesla’s) diagrams show that he was visualising the problem wrt an ECI reference frame
DREMT later writes 2:59 pm: I didn’t say (Tesla) mentioned any reference frames
DREMT again writes 2:59pm: (Tesla’s) visualizing the problem wrt an ECI reference frame
DREMT can’t keep his comments consistent.
DREMT writing: “It’s not difficult to mentally draw in the x,y and z axes” proves there is nothing DREMT can find to support that Tesla did so.
“(Tesla) draws no diagrams of the moon as observed from Earth.”
That’s wrong DREMT, see Tesla’s Fig. 6 diagram label: Used In the Theoretical Analysis of the Moon’s Motion. DREMT doesn’t even understand and can’t remember what Tesla wrote.
There is everything to support my “interpretation” (DREMT term) Tesla was located on Earth observing lunar motion from an accelerated frame since 1919 was before space travel.
The fact remains that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
My comments are consistent, Ball4, you’re just not listening. He didn’t mention the words "reference frame", not even once. However, from studying his diagrams, you can see that he’s visualising the problem wrt an ECI reference frame. He doesn’t need to say the word "reference frame" for that to be clear. Perhaps you simply lack the intellectual capacity to visualise things the way others can. Oh well.
No, Fig. 6 is not the moon as observed from Earth. If anything, it’s the moon wrt an ECI reference frame again. Your powers of visualisation are not good.
“Yes we get that Nate. But understand that a COM is not an object and thus it is not a motion of an object”
Good we agree. As noted, the additional motion is a rotation around the COM.
And engineers, like Swanson and Madhavi note, are taught the same.
“There is everything to support my “interpretation” (DREMT term) Tesla was located on Earth observing lunar motion from an accelerated frame since 1919 was before space travel.“
Lol, so Tesla can’t just visualise the problem wrt an ECI reference frame!? He has to actually go into space in order to literally observe lunar motion from outside the orbit!? This may be the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever said.
Tesla on Fig. 6: “Used In the Theoretical Analysis of the Moon’s Motion.”
DREMT: “Fig. 6 is not the moon”
Oh well. DREMT fails yet again. Pity.
Tesla did not use an ECI because Tesla was lunar observing from right here on Earth in an accelerated frame. The fact remains that ALL motion is relative just doesn’t get through to DREMT.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Au contraire. I have explained it in detail.
I won’t go right through it again but its easy to understand if you can grasp that the Moon is moving with an instantaneous linear motion. Also, if you get it that libration does no exist on a circular orbit or at either end of the major axis of an ellipse.
After that you simply draw a radial line from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre and track the tangent line to the tangent vector of the Moon’s motion. It’s immediately plain to see that the angle formed between the Earth-Moon radial line and the lunar velocity vector is constantly changing. That’s the source of your libration, or view angle.
On an ellipse, it’s simple to find all of those lines. If you draw another line from the Moon to the other focal point, the Earth being centered at the opposite focal point, then bisecting the angle formed gives you a lunar near-face radial line perpendicular to the Moon’s tangential velocity vector.
From that, you should immediately see that at either end of the major axis, the radial lines from either focal point are aligned, therefore the tangential velocity vector is perpendicular to both and no libration can exist. Couple that with the fact that with a purely circular orbit, the tangential vector is always perpendicular to the radial vector and you should get immediate insight into why there is libration on an elliptical orbit but not on a circular orbit.
Libration is a property of the orbital path, nothing else. It’s also about view angle.
Quick example. Looking at an ellipse with the Earth on the right focal point, picture the Moon halfway between the upper side of minor axis and the opposite end of the major axis on the side away from the Earth. Draw a line from Earth centre to Moon centre then one from Moon centre to the other focal point. Bisect the angle formed to get a radial line direction from the near face of the Moon. Now draw a line perpendicular to the radial line to get the Moon’s tangential velocity vector.
If you draw the ellipse with too much eccentricity this is not as apparent. Remember, the orbital ellipse is very close to being circular.
You can do that at any point of the ellipse to determine in which direction the near face is pointing. It’s equally obvious using that method that a viewer from Earth can see further around the near side at certain points on the orbit than others.
Your job is to disprove this method and observation. Last time you simply dismissed it as wrong.
Cool story, Bordo.
So you both explained libration and showed that it does not exist.
OK.
“If you draw another line from the Moon to the other focal point, the Earth being centered at the opposite focal point, then bisecting the angle formed gives you a lunar near-face radial line perpendicular to the Moons tangential velocity vector.”
No. It doesn’t. There are many hypotheses for how the moon should be oriented. Only one can be right. This one is much better than some, but still wrong.
YOUR job is to find the flaws in all the rest of science. Last time, you simply assumed you were right and everyone else was wrong.
If you actually want to delve into the issue and find the correct explanation, we could do that (or you could take some physics classes, or explore some accurate simulations).
there are so many similarities between an elliptical orbit and a circular one.
First the elliptical nature of an orbit is dependent upon its relative distance from the host body. The close the object is the more circular the orbit.
Second, kepler showed that the area swept out in equal times for elliptical orbits were the same as for a circular orbit.
third the displacement vector for every pair of equal time travels on opposites of the line between the two velocity vectors that are perpendicular to the host are also perpendicular to the host as they are in a circular orbit.
fourth, The angular momentum of a body in an elliptical orbit always remains the same throughout the orbit as with a circular orbit. Noting of course all circular orbits are going to be somewhat elliptical as a general law of nature.
fifth, spinners have already acknowledged rotations on external axes despite they all being somewhat elliptical because of the forces of gravity of other objects.
sixth, the moon’s orbit is far less elliptical than earth’s because earth is relatively much closer to the other planets than the moon is to the sun or the other planets.
seventh, The eccentricity becomes a maximum when the semi-major axis of the orbit lines up with the sun. This happens every 205.9 days more than half a year due to the precession of the orbit every 18.6 years.
No doubt this list could go on forever as more parameters similar to all orbits and all rotations on external axes adds up.
> spinners have already acknowledged rotations on external axes despite they all being somewhat elliptical
Gill lies again.
OK I may have overstated the word ”acknowledged” but
if you are in denial that gravity stretches the moon such that a rotation around the moon, particles would run on an elliptical path because the shape of the moon is elliptical.
But perhaps some can’t even acknowledge that.
Gill still tries to turn ellipses into circles.
You are falling behind in the lesson Willard. You need to read Madhavi Section 6 to observe that rotations need not be circles.
Gill gaslights again.
Gaslights? I said DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
“sixth, the moons orbit is far less elliptical than earths because earth is relatively much closer to the other planets than the moon is to the sun or the other planets.”
The opposite of this is true. The Moon’s eccentricity is much larger than the Earth’s.
“third the displacement vector for every pair of equal time travels on opposites of the line between the two velocity vectors that are perpendicular to the host are also perpendicular to the host as they are in a circular orbit.”
Unclear. Try again.
“seventh, The eccentricity becomes a maximum when the semi-major axis of the orbit lines up with the sun. This happens every 205.9 days more than half a year due to the precession of the orbit every 18.6 years.”
Huh? Where from?
“seventh, The eccentricity becomes a maximum”
OK, you are right. I found that one. Interesting.
Gordo pontificated:
The problem with that is that the Moon does not always present the same “face” to a viewer on the Earth. Gordo’s long winded post later in this thread ignores the fact that selecting some radial line between the Moon and the Earth which is “fixed” in the Moon does not always point toward the Earth. By “fixed”, I mean a line between the Moon’s COM passing thru some fixed point on it’s surface. His discussion applies only to the orbiting of the Moon, not it’s rotation.
yes but that happens with any rotation when subjected to gravity of other objects in the universe. If you want to make that your definition of rotation you will need to create some kind of materiality of deflection parameter where instantly the rotation moves from around the external axis of the parent planet to the internal axis of the moon. Seems rather silly.
> some kind of materiality of deflection parameter
Good idea. We need that unit.
I suggest we call it the Hunter.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 497.7 km/sec
density: 4.44 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
“Growing sunspot AR3529 has a beta-gamma magnetic field that poses a threat for strong M-class solar flares.”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
Seems quite active, quite a bit more than 100 sunspot number for
Dec.
Solar wind
speed: 350.0 km/sec
density: 4.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Dec 23
“Yesterday’s unstable sunspots are now stable. As a result the chance of a strong flare today has sharply subsided.”
Sunspot number: 157
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 187 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.86×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
“LARGE FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There is a sunspot on the farside of the sun so large it is affecting the way the whole sun vibrates. Helioseismologists have pinpointed its echo, right here. The active region is about one week from rotating onto the Earthside of the sun. Meanwhile, stay tuned for some impressive farside halo CMEs. CME alerts”
So, Dec sunspot number will be well above 100, perhaps near 120, or it’s going sideways. And I have guessing monthly sunspots number for somewhere around a year, something I thought was impossible to do, yet it seems to me, it’s going pretty good.
My mad purpose is two fold, first I want idea about GRC level in space, months to years ahead of time. In terms of crew missions to Mars. And second reason was I was wondering whether we were in a Solar Grand Min- and what effect this would have on space travel.
At this point, it seems a fair guess that we have left the Solar Grand Max of the 20th Century and there a good chance of a relatively short Solar Grand Min, in accordance with what Prof V. Zharkova has predicted, awhile ago.
And I have guessing based on based upon what she is predicting.
But in terms global weather or global climate, I don’t regard that as her field. Nor do I think anyone can predict global weather or global climate. Other than the ocean average temperature determines or is global average temperature and it does not change much within a century of time and we this thing called “natural variability” which regard as largely to do ocean circulation. Or if someone knew something about ocean circulation in terms of it affecting global weather or global average temperatures, might have more faith in prediction years head of time. Though I do think Earth’s relation and solar activity is part of global weather. But there lots of possible factors related to “natural variability”.
Anyhow, I had target of guessing to some point, and decided limit it, somehow, and picked Nov 2023 as dramatic drop. Also predicting when it’s cross the curve. And when are going get a spotless day and when are we going to get spotless days within solar cycle 25’s max.
So, Dec doesn’t seem it will have spotless day, but “LARGE FARSIDE SUNSPOT” doesn’t mean to me we won’t get a spotless day within a
week. Rather it’s stability of present nearside spots.
What currently interested in how they draw blue curve when Dec ends:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Kind of at 45 angle, does it bump up or down. Go flat or continue.
So if Dec is 120, what does averaged line do?
Solar wind
speed: 471.1 km/sec
density: 6.78 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 183 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.8% Low
3528 going to farside, I don’t see any spots coming from farside,
though it said a big one is coming in few days
Solar wind
speed: 455.4 km/sec
density: 6.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 94
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.10×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
And:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
25 December – 20 January 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels, with a chance for
moderate levels (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), throughout the outlook
period. Increased potential for activity is due to multiple R1 event
or greater producing regions either on the visible disk or due to
return in the coming weeks.–
So, it seems to me if we are in solar grand min, rather than just end of solar grand max, then the next year will have low monthly sunspot numbers. And Dec is not going to cross the curved line, but I expect the next couple months will cross and remain below it.
A Thought Experiment; Simplifying the Climate Riddle.
By Bob Irvine
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/20/a-thought-experiment-simplifying-the-climate-riddle/
…
“The agreed forcing for a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3.7 w/m^2 at the surface. A similar solar forcing increase of 3.7 w/m^2 would, on the other hand, be absorbed on average a number of meters below the ocean surface. Although it is not a gas, water has a much stronger greenhouse effect than do the GHGs. By the time that solar energy on average reaches the surface it has been delayed significantly, all the time adding to its residence time in the system.” ….
“CONCLUSION
Nothing written in this essay to date is controversial except my ECS surface temperature guess of 5.2C (approx.) for a 3.7w/m^2 increase in solar forcing. (See Note C) I am proposing here a solar ECS of about 5.2C and a CO2 ECS of about 1.3C because, when applied in tandem, they reproduce with surprising accuracy our best estimates of global surface temperatures for the last century and millennium. They are a guide only but do have a physical basis that is relatively uncontroversial.”
Ok, but what about .01 watts per square meter that remains for thousands of years?
gb…”The agreed forcing for a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3.7 w/m^2 at the surface”.
***
I don’t agree with it. I think the figure is based on faulty science and agreed upon by consensus.
What’s your figure?
EM,
The figure is slightly less than zero. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of solar radiation from reaching the surface. CO2 prevents its share, depending on wavelength.
For a particular frequency, if CO2 is 2500 times more effective at blocking radiation, then the other components of the atmosphere block about the same as the CO2, being 2500 times more prevalent. CO2 molecules are about 4 in 10000.
There is no ECS. No quantifiable sensitivity, no equilibrium. Just endless nonsense from GHE cultists.
Well do you agree that we living in 33.9 million year icehouse
global climate, also called the 5th known Ice Age on Earth, the Late Cenozoic Ice Age?
And do you agree all of our oceans are cold?
gb, you’re clogging the blog with nonsense. There is no ECS, or forcing from CO2.
You have claimed that you have no interest in the AGW nonsense, so why promote it?
Responsible adults don’t want to see such crap.
Clint demands obedience to his cult’s doctrine, or else…
Reality always wins, child.
You’ll learn that, if you ever grow up.
Who died and made you King of Reality, Puffman?
Sock puppets can only be Reality Kings in their fantasies.
Willard please stop gaslighting.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579647
” I am proposing here a solar ECS of about 5.2C and a CO2 ECS of about 1.3C because, when applied in tandem, they reproduce with surprising accuracy our best estimates of global surface temperatures for the last century and millennium.”
Hmmm, I have seen other correlations similar to that that get handwaved away as ”curve fitting”. As they say ”With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
There is nothing whatsoever in your quote from Meyer which talks about lunar rotation. Once again you mislead us with faulty translation and inference.
The translation is loosely…
…based on the period of time in which the moon move once, almost (see comment below) larger than the time of a periodic month, or as the time in which the moons move around the Earth in distance of the ecliptic.
Therefore, the periodic month should be 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 whatevers.
From above, I have no idea what the triple ”’ means although Binny seems to think it is 49 60ths of a second. Whatever, Meyer is clearly talking about lunar orbital period and not about rotation. In fact, Binny tried to pull the wool over our eyes by clipping off the quote to suit his own agenda.
My post above has been moved down here somehow. It is in reply to an earlier post by Binny at December 20, 2023 at 8:00 PM in which he used the following quote to justify his never-ending lie that Meyer talked about a lunar rotation about a local axis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
Mayer did tremendous work creating accurate lunar tables for use at sea, however, his work went for naught when an accurate ship’s clock was developed that made his tables obsolete. Sailor could find their latitude from the Sun but had nothing to locate their longitude. The clock enabled them to track their time from Greenwich, for example. Since the Earth rotates about 1 degree in 4 minutes, a very accurate clock could give the longitude by comparing local time to a time like Greenwich where the longitude is known.
A knock on Mayer’s tables was the length of time it took to do a calculation, about 4 hours. Still, if you are lost at see the tables would have been invaluable.
Another method was doing a star check but I imagine time had to be known as well. Once can tell by the sky position of a known constellation where one is located with respect to it.
Bordo, you are clogging the blog with nonsense.
Do continue.
The pot calls the kettle black.
Exactly.
we agree. But I am sure you will continue.
We actually don’t, but saying stuff is second nature to you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/s5rFD9X/archive-7-image.png
This is not the end of the thunderstorms. The forest will green up, and the eucalyptus trees will get rid of the competition with the help of fire (to which the trunks of eucalyptus trees are resistant). All this is a testament to the remarkable stability of Australias climate, because eucalyptus trees have adapted so well to it.
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/historical_maps.php
Swenson
“Hence, four and a half billion years of cooling, to the Earths present temperature.
Nothing mysterious. No GHE required or evident. ”
This is definitely your style.
Where did I find it?
In the comments section of this post at WUWT.
thought-experiment-simplifying-the-climate-riddle/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-thought-experiment-simplifying-the-climate-riddle#
Under what name?
Mike Flynn :–)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/20/a-thought-experiment-simplifying-the-climate-riddle/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-thought-experiment-simplifying-the-climate-riddle#
EM,
And? Do you disagree that the Earth has cooled since the surface was molten?
Presumably you were trying to make some relevant comment, but the relevance escapes me.
And what, Mike Flynn?
I think you know my point. Despite your claims to the contrary, Swenson and Mike Flynn are online pseudonyms used by the same person.
does anybody care?
I do.
why?
Why do you ask?
Because I see a lot of what appears to be nonsense cluttering up this forum.
Don’t be so hard on Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn must be a sock puppet of yours Willard.
Suddenly Gill cares about sock puppetry.
Willard I said I didn’t care. And that includes all your sock puppets as well.
I care about your gaslighting too, Gill.
Willard proclaims calling out sock puppets to be gaslighting. Good one Willard. I agree completely.
Gill just makes stuff up once more.
I agree with Willard and I am the one making stuff up. LMAO!
Gill tries to yes-and his insinuation that I have sockpuppets.
Shameless.
Yes I called you out for sock puppets.
I was gaslighting you, as charged, and the reason was because of the amount of gaslighting you do.
And we both agree its gaslighting.
This year the polar vortex will move over Siberia and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/2Ph6cmg/gfs-z50-nh-f240.png
It is probable that CO2 was MUCH higher when Earth first formed 4,5 billion years ago.
I think Earth was 4,5 billion years ago a gases planet like Venus.
Earth is of almost the same size and gravity Venus has. They are called for that the sisters planets.
–
They have one major difference though. Venus’ orbit is much closer to the sun, than Earth’s orbit.
Venus was always very hot planet, so it couldn’t hold water vapor in its atmosphere, because of H2O being a lighter gas.
At high temperatures the H2O molecules the much higher kinetic energy gradually “pushed” them out of the Venus’ atmosphere, out to the open space…
–
Earth, on the other hand, had lower temperatures, Earth formed liguid water oceans. Earth dissolved CO2 in its oceanic waters.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I agree. You describe the history of the two planets well.
But if you already know this, why are you promoting the hypothesis that the dominant variable determining a planet’s temperature is their rate of rotation?
Thank you, Ent.
“why are you promoting the hypothesis that the dominant variable determining a planets temperature is their rate of rotation?”
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, it is a planet average surface temperature amplification factor.
–
The EM energy comes from sun. There is the “energy in =energy out” the equilibrium energy balance axiom to be met.
So, there is the Solar flux (S), surface Albedo (a), and the solar irradiation accepting factor (the spherical shape and roughness coefficient (Φ) ) to do the job.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Early Earth suffered constant threat of attack from leftover planet-building material. From about 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, failed planets and smaller asteroids slammed into larger worlds, scarring their surface. Near the end of the violence, during a period known as the Late Heavy Bombardment, impacts in the solar system may have increased. The increased activity most likely came from the movement of the giant planets, which sent debris raining down on the smaller rocky worlds.”
https://www.space.com/36661-late-heavy-bombardment.html
It seems to me, before 4.5 billion years, Earth was hit by a large object which later became our Moon.
And later, lots of big space rocks during Late Heavy Bombardment smashed into Earth and the Moon. And apparently life started around 3.8 billion middle of time vast space rock were pounding Earth.
I don’t think we know much about Venus.
One of this site’s subterranean reptiles wrote this:
“A,
The Earth is losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so. That’s known as cooling.”
The amount of heat flowing from the Earth’s interior is 44TW (44,000,000,000,000 W) which, spread over its total surface area of 510,000,000,000,000 m^2, represents a flux of 0.086 W/m^2.
Above ground however, where the rest of us live, the October measured TOA incoming solar radiation was 342.47 W/m^2, reflected shortwave 97.74 W/m^2, and outgoing longwave 242.53 W/m^2.
Thus, the October 2023 TOA EEI was 2.2 W/m^2, and the 36 month running average was 1.52 W/m^2.
In conclusion, the Earth’s interior cooling has no bearing on the energy imbalance of the surface and atmosphere.
A,
Losing energy is called cooling by physicists. During the night, all of the heat of the day flees to space.
That’s why the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. The Earth has emitted far more energy than it has received.
Ark, your agenda is showing.
EEI, and your “measured” flux values, are bogus. That “342.47 W/m^2” is NOT a measured value. It is nothing more than the solar constant divided by 4. You can’t average flux! And you don’t even know where TOA is.
Even Bindi knows that integrating over a hemisphere results is about 480 W/m^2, which corresponds to a temperature of 303K. You know less than Bindi!
Your emotional breakdown is showing.
Your inability to learn is showing. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Psst, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1578603
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another of this site’s subterranean reptiles wrote:
“… That ‘342.47 W/m^2’ is NOT a measured value. … And you don’t even know where TOA is.”
There is a new invention that you have obviously not heard about.
It’s called the Earth-observing satellite. It’s all the rage.
ark the 342.47 is mean incoming solar. you don’t use an earth observing satellite to measure that. take a course in this topic you aren’t going to learn anything in these comment sections without a well trained bullshitt filter.
Ark doesn’t even know the difference between flux and energy.
That’s because his cult doesn’t know. And Ark just regurgitates what his cult believes.
Explain the difference to us, and more importantly, why is MATTERS, given that scientists generally know how to do basic math!
Child, your cult doesn’t even know the difference between a “quantity” and a “rate”.
If I drive at a constant rate of 40mph to my grocery store, how far did I go?
(How is that “basic math” working for you, child?)
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
If you know the area over which the Sun hits at zenith and you know the flux, how long can you try to ignore that we can establish a “quantity” from these two facts?
Whining Wee Willy,
A “quantity”? Of what?
You can add two “quantities” of “flux” from ice, say, but it will do you no good if you are trying to work out the temperature of an object exposed to such radiation.
Are you really as dim as you seem, or just pretending?
Mike Flynn,
A quantity of what?
Don’t you know?
Whining Wee Willy,
A “quantity”? Of what?
You can add two “quantities” of “flux” from ice, say, but it will do you no good if you are trying to work out the temperature of an object exposed to such radiation.
Are you really as dim as you seem, or just pretending?
Yes, Mike.
A “quantity.”
As in – the “quantity” that Puffman denies.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Child, your cult doesnt even know the difference between a quantity and a rate.”
I’m not aware of anyone doing that.
But I am aware of you trying to add force and velocity vectors, which have different units, and thus it makes no sense to add them!
But you tried anyway, because you are not able to recall real physics.
And yet another one of the site’s subterranean reptiles wrote:
“… the 342.47 is mean incoming solar. you don’t use an earth observing satellite to measure that.”
The same satellite system that collects measurements for the data presented at the top of Dr Spencer’s page is also being used to measure Earth’s radiative energy fluxes.
No need to thank me. Plumbing the depths of these reptiles’ ignorance is rewarding enough for me.
Ark, you can’t try to gain credibility by mentioning Spencer. He knows what he’s doing. You don’t have a clue.
* You can’t average/divide/add/subtract flux from different sources.
* Flux is NOT energy.
* Your cult can’t even agree on what altitude TOA is.
* Keyboarding ain’t science.
Clint R
You claim to have studied physics but you have no understanding and can’t learn. Flux can be used as energy IF the area is the same and the time of effect is the same. If you studied physics, as you claim, you would know that area cacels out of Flux when it is the same and it translates to energy if you have a given time. Watts/meter^2. Joules (energy) per second per square meter. If you have a Flux of 240 W/m^2. Then a 1 square meter surface will either receive 2400 jokes in 10 seconds or emit this much energy. In your other example, a rate of 60 mph can be converted to distance if you know the time. Doubt you understand any of this. Babble on with more childish cult opinions. It is all you can do.
False accusations ain’t science, Norman.
You might want to clean up your comment, taking out all the nonsense like “2400 jokes”. But, if you did that you might realize how irrelevant it is. My point is — units matter. Flux is NOT energy. Speed is NOT a distance.
See if you can find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How come you play the Hall Monitor on a website from which you got kicked out multiple times over a decade or so, and keep coming back under another sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
When silly willy tries to incompetently cover for his incompetent cult brothers just proves I’ve hit the target.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Hey Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-255118
Dis U?
Not only is Norman counting up to “2400 jokes”, but he is trying to hid his identity by commenting as “Noman”!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Willard, please stop trolling.
P.s.: https://aqua.nasa.gov/
where is the 342.47 link Ark?
Obviously we need some reconciliation. This NOAA site puts the solar constant at 1361 watts which divided by 4 gives a mean of 340.25.
If thats the case 2.22watts/m2 accounts for virtually all the warming seen in the modern era. Whats up with that? With your alleged number being official and official agency sites something needs some reconciliation or all you are doing is seeding more skepticism. Think about that before you post.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight#:~:text=The%20Sun's%20energy%20output%20changes,it%20is%20at%20solar%20minimum.
“where is the 342.47 link Ark?”
The link has not changed since I posted it last month, and the month before that.
A,
Or you could be helpful, and repeat it.
Probably save yourself a little time as well.
On the other hand, there is nothing forcing you to be helpful, is there?
Carry on.
Well if Ark wants to demur on supporting his own stuff what we do know is there is a huge variation in the solar constant that nobody wants to talk about wrt: my link. And that leaves the warmist case hanging desperately on to the ropes.
Bill, the earth’s orbit is not circular. The 340.25 W/m^2 value is the average for the orbit.
The near and far points are about 1.7% closer and farther than the average distance. This means the irradiance varies by about +/- 3.4%. That translated to about 340 W/m^2 +/- 10 W/m^2.
So, no, being off by 2.22 W/m^2 at any given time is not some huge cause of warming.
Flux from different surfaces, with different temperatures, can NOT be averaged. Folkerts, AGAIN, has no clue.
Tim is a gongbeater of limited intelligence. He refuses to acknowledge that the Earth has cooled since its inception.
He may add fluxes until the cows come home, and the Earth will continue to cool, losing energy at the rate of about 44 TW.
Rational people accept reality. The mentally disturbed do not.
Perhaps before of speaking of “flux with different temperatures” Puffman could tell us how can flux haz temperatures.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Perhaps instead of writing –
“Perhaps before of speaking of “flux with different temperatures” Puffman could tell us how can flux haz temperatures.”, you could try appearing at least slightly intelligent, but I doubt it.
Your description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, really says it all, don’t you think?
“Flux from different surfaces, with different temperatures, can NOT be averaged. Folkerts.”
This is a flux from a single source at the single temperature — the sun. Care to try again?
Folkerts, you and your cult, try to simply add solar to flux from the sky.
Time to start weaseling now, huh?
Its as if Clint has never experienced the real world.
He seems unaware that multiple lights at a football game or at a concert SUM, and make the scene brighter.
If they didn’t, it would be a huge waste electricity.
Nate says:
Its as if Clint has never experienced the real world.
He seems unaware that multiple lights at a football game or at a concert SUM, and make the scene brighter.
If they didnt, it would be a huge waste electricity.
——————–
Yes exactly Nate! You have lights and more electricity running them. Obviously its going to be brighter.
But what you are trying to analogize to is that increasing the total energy input and number of lights is the equivalent of not increasing the energy input and having one light on the football field that will get brighter if a low lying fog comes in and diffuses the light. Nate please stop posting when you are loaded! It really makes you look ridiculous.
Gill fantasizes about analogies again.
If only he could mind his units properly.
Nate must be Willards sock puppet or vice versa. Virtually, no chance of such dimwi.ttedness being capable of 2 instances in the same thread from 2 different posters.
Sometimes I think that Gill is only Mosh’s drunken persona.
But then he makes comments like these.
Bill, thanks for agreeing that the intensity from multiple light sources, striking the same surface, SUMS.
A fact that Clint consistently denies.
And its not an analogy.
Does he? I wasn’t aware of that. Do you have evidence of that? As I took his meaning to mean something else in that you can’t bring in a low lying fog and increase the flux from a single light. . .keeping in mind that the light that lights the fog has been lost from the surface and its not recyclable in the sense of increasing the power of the original light source.
This harkens toward the proof you offered alleging that the CO2 enhances the GHE and the answer was if it could change the lapse rate it would reduce the watts that departed the surface by convection allowing for the assumption that convection would fail to act as negative feedback to light absorbed by CO2 when all it has done is warm toward the same temperature as the surface.
You are stuck on the 3rd grader radiation model and absolutely believe that CO2 is capable of jamming up the process of light leaving the atmosphere when in fact what it does is enable light to leave the atmosphere.
And why is that common knowledge? How often do you see politicians admit they were wrong? Not often. What does happen though is not often is a growing phenomena. . .which sometimes matches the popularity of aliens being harbored in Area 51 but if not sexy enough just fade away like old soldiers.
The point, Clint, is that your complaint reveals that you don’t actually understand the issue at hand. AGAIN, different surfaces with different temperatures were not being discussed.
A,
There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total external radiation reaching the Earth. Such a measurement would be completely pointless in any case. If you don’t understand why, you are demonstrating your cultist ignorance.
The only demonstrated “energy imbalance” is the one that has resulted in four and a half billion years of cooling of the surface to its current temperature.
Keep dreaming.
“There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total external radiation reaching the Earth.”
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
What facts or logic are you applying, if any?
Your incredulity is a poor substitute for actual facts and logic.
Vournas
” Moons sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moons around Earth orbital, Moons around sun orbital and Moons around its axis movements. ”
No. You are wrong. A sidereal month is the time it takes a celestial body to return to a similar position among the stars, and nothing else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
*
Please have furthermore a look at
https://helas.gr/gr/phdslist.php?page=3&ch=%CE%9C
and click on ‘Μουτσούλας Μιχαήλ’.
*
Try to read and understand what your highly knowledgeable compatriot Michael D. Moutsoulas wrote in two very different but complementary papers about (1) lunar theory and (2) lunar measurement practice:
(1) Selenographic Control
http://tinyurl.com/Moutsoulas-1973-1
(2) Calibration of 35 Pic-du-Midi Photographs of the Moon
http://tinyurl.com/Moutsoulas-1973-2
*
I’m 100% sure that not one of the lunar spin denŷers ‘operating’ on this blog would ever visit any observatory! That would be for them the beginning of the end of the nonsense they endlessly spout here.
*
But maybe you do, it’s not far from your home after all:
http://observatory.phys.uoa.gr/
Thank you, Bindidon, for the good references you provided.
–
I looked carefully and didn’t found any mention of the Moon rotating about its own axis.
–
” I looked carefully and didnt found any mention of the Moon rotating about its own axis. ”
You seem to understand under ‘carefully’ the same as Robertson.
*
Please try to better concentrate when reading:
https://tinyurl.com/Moutsoulas-1973-1
*
1. Abstract:
” The connection between the instantaneous axis of lunar rotation… ”
2.1 first page:
” However, a considerable amount of data in the existing literature refer to a mean position of the lunar axis of rotation while radar and laser ranging data … are related to the instantaneous position of the rotation axis. ”
2.2 page 464:
” Most common mistake has been the assumption that the axis of lunar rotation… ”
2.3 page 466: reference to Cassini’s usual laws of motion
” … (a) the Moon rotates eastward about its polar axis … ”
2.4 page 467: reference to Moutsoulas’ slight adaptation of the laws in order to obtain a fixed coordinate system used in the same way by all terrestrial and spatial observers
” … which indicates that even with Cassini’s assumptions of orientation the axis of rotation would precess about the direction of fixed inclination to the ecliptic. ”
**
The second Moutsoulas paper does not contain any reference to the lunar rotation: it was not its purpose to discuss this point.
{ Once you have understood what Tobias Mayer did in his treatise, it becomes obvious to you however, that in order to obtain exact selenocentric coordinates for selected points on the Moon (craters, mountains), you first must determine the exact inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the Ecliptic (regardless whether or not the Moon rotates about it). }
Binny,
You wrote “regardless whether or not the Moon rotates about it”.
Exactly. The axis can be found, regardless of whether or not rotation occurs around it.
All you idîot are able to do is continually, egomaniacally point out what is completely irrelevant to the current discussion.
What is relevant here is that people have been interested for at least a century in calculating the Moon’s rotation period and understanding possible connections between irregularities in this period (so-called physical librations) and the nature of the Moon’s interior.
Who the hell would care if things like that seem relevant to you, Flynnson?
Bindi, if you’re an expert on Moon, instead of just another cult idi0t, then you probably have a model of “orbital motion without spin”.
Why not share your model?
I won’t hold my breath….
Oooooooh! Another patronising gotcha!
Puffman wrote “Why not share your model?”
Yes, children, obey Puffman. Otherwise he will send you to bed without your supper!
Wistful Wee Willy,
Thank you for the flattery by imitation.
I understand you do not have my linguistic ability, so feel free to emulate my words to your heart’s delight.
I appreciate your choice.
You obviously like my initiation of the phrase “braying like a donkey”, but I dont expect you to give credit every time you use it.
Carry on.
Clint R says:
”Why not share your model?
I wont hold my breath.”
No kidding!
Mike Flynn,
“Emulate” your words?
What are you braying about?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Thank you for the flattery by imitation.
I understand you do not have my linguistic ability, so feel free to emulate my words to your hearts delight.
I appreciate your choice.
You obviously like my initiation of the phrase “braying like a donkey”, but I don’t expect you to give credit every time you use it.
Carry on braying if you wish.
Mike Flynn,
One does not simply emulate words.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For those interested in librations, here is the basic issue.
Consider this graphic: http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
Assume the planet is tidally locked so one face is always roughly toward the sun. (or if you prefer, assume a planet is at the focus and a moon is orbiting.)
At position “A”, the location on the planet facing the “3 o’clock” direction is straight toward the sun. If you stayed at that location, which way would you be facing throughout the orbit?
In particular, you might consider point “C”, which is (at least pretty close to) 1/4 of the distance around the orbit (ie it is at the minor axis). would your location now be at the 12 o’clock? Maybe at 1 o’clock? or 11 o’clock?
Give an explanation for whatever answer you choose. Again, there is only one correct answer at each point along the orbit.
Oooooooh! Another patronising gotcha!
You wrote “Give an explanation for whatever answer you choose. Again, there is only one correct answer at each point along the orbit.”
Yes, children, obey Tim. Otherwise he will send you to bed without your supper!
Tim, first demonstrate your sanity, then your reasons for appointing yourself arbiter of truth.
Otherwise, people may think you are nothing more than a pretentious, ignorant GHE cultist.
Carry on.
Clearly Swenson has no interest in a simple, informative discussion about libration. Does anyone else from the “non-spinners” have any insights about what, precisely, “orbiting with out rotating” means for the orientation of the moon?
Moon is orbiting without spin. That means one of its sides always faces the inside of its orbit.
It’s as simple as a ball-on-a-string. Yet cult kids can’t grasp it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
The ball on the string is made of elefant manure. Its all your fault too.
Here’s a riddle for Moon Dragon cranks –
[PUFFMAN] Its as simple as a ball-on-a-string.
[ALSO PUFFMAN] The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Why is Puffman not saying that a ball-on-a-string is a model of the motion of the Moon?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why is Puffman not saying that a ball-on-a-string is a model of the motion of the Moon?.
Oh, what a gotcha – not!
You are an idiot, Willard.
> We know the motion is a single motion so its not two motions as that would be impossible
🤦
Mike Flynn,
“Not”?
What are you braying about?
Do you not know how transitivity works?
You wrote
“Why is Puffman not saying that a ball-on-a-string is a model of the motion of the Moon?”
Oh, what a gotcha not!
You are an idiot, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Either the motion of the Moon is as simple as a ball-on-string or a ball-on-string is only a model of an orbit without spin.
Can’t be both.
Tim,
Now you write –
“Does anyone else from the non-spinners have any insights about what, precisely, orbiting with out rotating means for the orientation of the moon?”
That’s a completely different question, isn’t it?
The answer is simple – the motion of Newton’s cannonball. One face (the bottom) constantly facing the COG of the Earth.
Why do you ask?
“Newtons cannonball. One face (the bottom) constantly facing the COG of the Earth.”
How do you know that? Show us the figure illustrating that.
I know you won’t.
Because there is none. And this is pure fantasy.
Tim Folkerts says:
Does anyone else from the non-spinners have any insights about what, precisely, orbiting with out rotating means for the orientation of the moon?
————
What do you want it to mean? We know the motion is a single motion so its not two motions as that would be impossible. Newton circumvented that in his equation by making one conceptual motion be a point mass that ”BY DEFINITION” has no lines in it to see if its rotating or translating. So the motion is a fictitious motion of an object, completely undefinable. Also its not a picture of reality as the moon with dimensions is clearly orbiting its also orbiting with an line between two particles constantly changing direction.
So any rotating object in the universe can be broken down conceptually like this. Fact is rotation is determined by a difference in velocity of every particle of the moon (which eliminates the moon rotating on its own axis for those claiming a change in velocity eliminates a rotation).
So the real truth is everybody’s position on this matter can be nitpicked to death. But the challenges are 1) explain why a boulder on the surface of the earth is deemed to be rotating around the center of the earth, but with a nice vertical push on its COG and lifted off the earth its now considered to be rotating on its own axis and orbiting the earth in an elliptical orbit by virtue of the attraction of Jupiter and the other planets you want to deny any such object rotation status around an external axis while for eons that is all it does.
So my challenge to you is the same challenge I made to Nate but Nate is afraid to take the challenge on. Design a device like Madhavi did for general plane motions (the wheel rolling down the road) using the forces surrounding the moon at your disposal.
Nah, that is just another rabbit hole.
“We know the motion is a single motion so its not two motions as that would be impossible.”
Whatever, Bill. Since you cannot define what you mean by ‘single motion’ this is pointless.
“So the motion is a fictitious motion of an object, completely undefinable.”
Newton’s solution of the two-body gravity problem gives the ORBIT, which is the position of the smaller body as a function of time, and it is elliptical, with the body speeding up and slowing down, and explains Kepler’s laws.
What is the position of a Moon or planet in space? Newton defines it as the position of the COM of the body.
Thus his ORBIT solution finds nothing more than the position of the COM (a point) of an orbiting body as a function of time.
And as you correctly point out Bill, a point cannot rotate. So Newton’s original solution for the Orbit of a planet, moon, or cannonball told us NOTHING about the ROTATION or ORIENTATION of the body.
Anyone claiming that Newton’s cannonball must be oriented or rotating in a special way is claiming something that Newton could not possibly have claimed.
thats just gibberish nate. do you really think that newton believed particles of the moon can go in two different directions at the same time? or was just infinity smarter than you and worked out some easy mathematical reductions of the motion to make it easier on folks to calculate newtonian physics of the moon’s motion?
“do you really think that newton believed particles of the moon can go in two different directions at the same time? ”
Different parts of the Moon have different motions, YES.
Define ‘single motion’.
I think the point you are missing, Bill, is that a Rigid Body is not a point particle, and is made up of many particles, which each can have different motions.
If the body is in pure translation, only then do all its particles have the same, single, motion.
I think the point you are missing Nate is the moon isn’t a rigid body to the extent it doesn’t stretch and that for moons that do have spins on their central axes the host planet is stretching that body and that stretch causes all the particles in the moon to follow an elliptical path for each spin on their axis albeit with a very small eccentricity value. Thus are you going to claim that isn’t a rotation either? If not then you have a major consistency problem.
[GILL] Design a device like Madhavi
[ALSO GILL] the moon isnt a rigid body
The moon is stretched significantly by gravity sufficiently enough to account for a motion like the motl. When are you going to entertain us with a video of your design build of your spin-orbit lock device
Second any rigid object is capable of moving in only one direction at time. That would apply to the individual particles as well. Though there are no restrictions on individual particles moving in different directions from other individual particles in fact that is what happens in a rotation. But the idea of the moon both translating without a line through any two particles changing direction while at the same time rotating with all lines between any two particles rotating at the same time is impossible.
You want to put a whole lot of conditions on rotation by extrapolating from an example given by Madhavi. But the fact is Madhavi straightened it all out in the subsequent examples. The general plane motion had the axle for the wheels axis moving in a straight line. she had the same thing happening with the sliding rods with the rods rotating around their hinge pins and the hinge pins moving in straight lines.
So every particle is either rotating or translating. In the curvilinear translation example she had rotating arms on fixed pins that were rotating a plate in an orbit while lines through any two particles in the plate did not change direction. but the plate was rotating on the hinge pins on the lower end of the rods while the rods rotated in the opposite direction on fixed pins at the upper end of the rods in a motion like the MOTR with two rotations in opposite directions going on resulting in the plate rotating while the lines between particles did not. Thats a curvilinear translation per Madhavi and thus the MOTR is also a curvilinear translation with two rotations going on in opposite directions. . . leaving the MOTL as a rotation on the center of the host planet with no spin on its central axis. put a spin on that axis and you either end up with the particles not rotating at all or you end up with them rotating twice as fast.
Now what I would suggest you go out in your garage and design and build a device like suggested here by Willard with a spin-orbit lock and film the design and build process and put it up on youtube like I suggested Willard do for our entertainment.
Or better yet you guys join up in the same garage and we can listen to the banter between the two of you as you design your device. Heck even better make it a party bring in Tim, Bob, and all the rest of the spinners willing to give this a try.
DREMT already did illustrating how he would do it with the truther video.
I already have a design.
One basketball to represent the Earth, one baseball to represent the Moon, and a non-spinner to try to revolve the baseball around the basketball three times, holding the baseball in one hand such that one side always faces the basketball.
Free trip to the hospital to set the non-spinners broken arm.
And no, I’m not paying the hospital bill.
Gravity is the only force on the Moon, Bill.
Bob has been disagreeing with Willard and Nate for a while apparently.
It’s an interesting American trait to always try to use an analogy, instead of addressing reality.
Basketballs, baseballs, arms and hands . . .
What is wrong with using the Earth, the Moon, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation?
Someone said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Mike Flynn,
Please don’t blame Gill for trying to please Daddy Graham.
He needs his toy model!
Swenson,
“What is wrong with using the Earth, the Moon, and Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation?”
What’s that got to do with how the Moon is spinning, has been spinning, and will be spinning for quite a while?
“What do you want it [orbiting without rotating] to mean? ”
I would like it to mean something that is clearly defined for all parts of the moon and in agreement with basic laws of physics.
It seems we both agree that the center of mass follows an ellipse. That is a clearly defined motion for that point, and it is in agreement with the laws of physics.
So now let’s try a second point. Let’s do the point closest to the earth at perigee. If the moon is “not rotating” how will that point move?
For people using the basic physics/engineering/astronomy definition, that is simple. That point maintains a fixed orientation relative to the fixed stars. Again, this is in agreement with the laws of physics.
Your turn. How would a “non-spinner” describe the location of the point for a “non-rotating” moon?
> We know the motion is a single motion so its not two motions as that would be impossible
🤦
Witless Wee Willy,
Why are you poking yourself in the eye?
Can’t you find anything cogent to say?
Mike Flynn,
You really think this is the poking-in-the-eye emoji?
Perhaps I should ask first –
You really think?
Witless Wee Willy,
Why are you poking yourself in the eye?
Cant you find anything cogent to say?
Mike Flynn,
It was a rhetorical question, of course.
You don’t think, you bray.
Cheers.
tim…your link does explain it but not in the way you describe.
Look at points A and G. A tangent line representing the linear velocity of a planet that is not spinning would be perpendicular to the radial lines from the Sun to those points.
Now look at point J. A tangent line representing the linear velocity is no longer perpendicular to the radial line. That change in angle is libration.
To see how the planet at point J is oriented, remememer the exercise for finding the radial line. Presume the other focal point to be the same distance from the far end of the major axis as the Sun is located. Draw a line from J to that point and bisect the angle to find the radial line representing the orientation of the near face.
Note that it is no longer pointing at the Sun but away from it and that allows us to see around the near edge.
“To see how the planet at point J is oriented, remememer the exercise for finding the radial line….”
I congratulate you for actually venturing an answer. It is also fairly accurate proposal. But not right.
Each point along the orbit is 1/12th of the total orbital period. Between each letter and the next, the rotation is 30 degrees. Or “one hour less” on a clock face.
At point J, the planet has completely 3/4 of the orbital period. At point J, the planet has also completely 3/4 of a rotation on its axis. The original spot is pointing “straight down” ie the 6 o’clock direction.
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Somewhere above, Vournas wrote on December 19, 2023 at 7:54 AM:
” Where ever I look, Earths surface doesnt emit 240 W/m^2. ”
Προσπάθησε περισσότερο!
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2023-12-20&p1=dpsp&p6=upir
Of course, the denŷal troupe will come by soon and say:
” That’s a faked graph! ”
So what…
Does Binny ever produce any science of his own, or is his world related only to authority figures like NOAA?
Would you mind explaining how radiation can be measured in units such as w/m^2, where the watt is a derivative of mechanical horsepower hence a measure of mechanical work? Heat can be stated as an equivalence of mechanical energy but not an equality. What then, is the relationship in w/m^2 between work and electromagnetic energy?
They won’t tell you at NOAA or anywhere else on the Net since no one seems to know.
Elefant manure does not cause global warming.
bob d…”Moons gravity vector?
Your resultant vector has to be changing, what force is causing that change?
***
Clint was correct re the vectors. The only thing with which I would disagree mildly is that force vectors and velocity vectors cannot be added, therefore we need a pseudo-force vector to represent the Moon’s linear momentum. If we can replace the momentum vector with a pseudo-force, then we can add the vectors to get the required resultant.
That’s not so far-fetched. Obviously, a mass with momentum represents a potential force until it collides with something.
In order to add vectors, the vectors must have the same units of measurement. Force vectors can be added, velocity vectors can be added, and acceleration vectors can be added, but none of the three can be added with each other. It’s like anything else in science, you can only add component that share the same units.
So, how do we find a pseudo-force that can be added to Earth’s gravitational force? We examine momentum. We know momentum is a product of a force and a mass and when the force is removed, or reaches a point where the force can no longer accelerate the mass, the mass reaches a constant velocity and the product of the mass and the velocity is the momentum.
We need to reverse that process to see what kind of force, when applied to the mass, will decelerate the mass till it is stopped. If we find that force, which must be applied over a time frame, unless the mass is much smaller than a colliding object, so that the mass comes to rest immediately, then we can calculate a force equivalent to the mass in motion at constant velocity. Even if it takes time to decelerate the mass, it will likely be similar to the time the force was applied to produce the momentum.
Once we have that pseudo-force, we can apply it to Earth’s gravity force to get the desired resultant. We can work backwards, taking the current mass and linear velocity of the Moon, and ask what kind of force would have been required to accelerate that mass to the current velocity.
There are scientists who claim that the Moon, with constant velocity has an acceleration, and I think that is wrong. They are defining acceleration as the change in angle of a velocity vector and acceleration is not about the change in angle of a vector. It is solely about the change in the velocity vector scalar quantities and if those are constant, nothing is changing re acceleration.
With vector calculus, the scalar quantities are inserted into a matrix for addition and multiplication. The matrix actually combines the scalar quantities in a specific order to get a resultant vector. Vector angles are part of the scalar product as sines and cosines, but those represent the component lengths of the vectors. Obviously, with a vector representing a constant velocity, the angles do not change as would be required for acceleration.
If a point is moving on a circle at constant velocity, and you track it using a radial line, then the velocity of the particle is normally calculated in radians/sec, which is the rate of change of radial vector. Obviously, with constant particle velocity, that rate of change of angle must be constant. For acceleration, the rate of change in radians of the radial line must be changing, then the particle velocity must be changing.
I think it is incorrect to claim for that particle that v = a^2/r.
Gordon,
“There are scientists who claim that the Moon, with constant velocity has an acceleration, and I think that is wrong.”
The Moon doesn’t have either a constant velocity, nor a constant radial velocity.
Both change as the Moon revolves around the Earth in an elliptical path.
Acceleration is any change in velocity, which is a vector with a direction and magnitude. If you change the direction of an object that is moving, you have a change in the velocity, therefore an acceleration.
Basic physics.
“I think it is incorrect to claim for that particle that v = a^2/r.”
Well, your mileage may vary. You won’t find many that agree with you on that equation.
Here is one that doesn’t.
https://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class07/class7_circular.html
Gordon,
“We know momentum is a product of a force and a mass”
No we don’t know that.
Momentum is the product of velocity and mass, and its units are kg*m/sec.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
tim f…”Bill, the earths orbit is not circular. The 340.25 W/m^2 value is the average for the orbit”.
***
As Swenson pointed out, this is not a measured value for the simple reason that we have no instruments that can measure such a broadband of EM freqencies. Planck’s equation is not about measurement, it is an equation with a probability factor included to fudge a bell shaped EM curve. There is no instrument on Earth can produce such a curve unless the curve represents a seriously limited response due to its inability to detect frequencies outside that range.
Even communications receivers cannot detect a broad band of frequencies, they can only beat individual frequencies against a local oscillator and filter the signal using intermediate frequency amplifier stages.
The 340.25 w/m^2 is a simple guess based on S-B. If we had the means of detecting radiation intensities across the entire EM spectrum we would no doubt detect large variations in the average as indicated by Bill Hunter.
The point is, we are being fed juvenile science and expected to swallow it. When an energy budget shows more radiation intensity being back radiated from a trace gas in the atmosphere than the Sun itself, we know there is pseudo-science at work.
Gordon,
“When an energy budget shows more radiation intensity being back radiated from a trace gas in the atmosphere than the Sun itself, we know there is pseudo-science at work.”
–
Thank you, Gordon!
Thank you, Gordon? Sure?
Look at these two SURFRAD stations.
1. Near Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana, US:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B018'28.2%22N+105%C2%B006'06.1%22W/@48.3077185,-105.6613684,188712m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.30783!4d-105.1017?hl=en&entry=ttu
on 2023, December 20
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2023-12-20&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir
*
2. At Desert Rock near Mercury Valley, Nevada, US:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B037'25.4%22N+116%C2%B001'10.1%22W/@36.6237265,-116.5801665,227707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d36.6237222!4d-116.0194722?hl=en&entry=ttu
on 2023, June 20
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2023-06-20&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir
*
If you think that’s all fake, then… feel free to design and build new SW/LW radiation measurement devices!
*
But don’t forget to read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579208
before you start the job :–)
Binny,
I can’t see where you explain the mechanism for the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Due to the GHE, do you think?
[laughing at reality denier]
Gordo displays his ignorance, yet again, writing:
Sorry, Gordo, there have been several such instruments onboard satellites orbiting outside the TOA which recorded such measurements.
Search [satellite cavity radiometer]. Here’s one from NASA. The link states:
TOTAL means all wavelengths.
ES,
“TOTAL means all wavelengths.”
Agreed. Measuring such is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
If you belong otherwise, you might care to indicate whether you are ignorant, gullible, mentally impaired, or all three.
You are certainly in denial of reality.
swannie…” The Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Satellite (AcrimSat) is designed to monitor the total amount of the Suns energy reaching Earth.
TOTAL means all wavelengths”.
***
You haven’t told us anything we don’t already know. All these instruments do is average the received energy, they cannot tell you if the Sun is emitting stronger in a specific frequency band.
Gordo first claimed that there aren’t any instruments which can measure the total rate of energy reaching the Earth. That’s the source of the 340.25 w/m^2 average over the Solar Cycle, which Gordo claims to be a guess. Now he changes his tune, demanding measures of specific wavelengths, which is available from spectrometers, long a staple in the measurements by astronomers. Such instruments have also been placed in orbit, which led to the discovery that the “solar constant” wasn’t actually a constant because of variations in the UV bands.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
For those obsessed with moon, I have a more important question. How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?
Fairies fall under the expertise of wee willy. I will leave that to his expert opinion.
It depends, are they wearing boots?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Are you wearing boots DR EMPTY?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
For those obsessed with the moon, I have a more important question. How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?
I’ve never understood the obsession with the moon, particularly. The argument is actually about all orbiting objects. It could just as easily be all about, “does the Earth spin 366.25 times on its own axis, per orbit, or 365.25 times per orbit?”
But, people like to obsess about the moon. So, leave them to it.
the fact that number is exactly 1 rotation different is the first clue for those who remain clueless and closed minded and sycophantic.
The fact that the question is ill-posed is the first clue for those who remain convinced that cranks are looking for a scientific answer.
clues 2 through clue 303 for the 8 planets, 5 dwarfs, and 290 moons is that sidereal rotation is an exact 1.0000000000000000. . . for every single one of them.
Clue 2 is that every single celestial object known to mankind spins.
Not just celestial bodies, but celestial objects:
https://futurism.com/come-everything-universe-spinning
The question is not ill-posed.
Willard obviously can’t catch clues even when given 303 swings
Gill adulates Daddy Graham once again.
He can’t help himself.
303 orbiting bodies all having one extra sidereal rotation!
And then you have the moon and more than half the moons in the solar system where the only rotation is a sidereal one.
But gee they couldn’t catch a clue if it landed on their nose.
The cult’s obsession with Moon is due to their desperate effort to pervert science. It’s clear those that are religiously glued to the Moon spin nonsense are also as glued to the AGW nonsense.
Banging the drum for your own cult again Clint R?
Reality is NOT a cult, bob.
Cults form around ways to pervert reality. Like when you try to support that ice can boil water.
A cult would say you couldn’t boil water with ice, when the reality is that you can’t boil water with the radiation from ice.
You can’t tell the difference between the two statements.
That’s why you are in a cult.
Bob continues Play games with semantics to cover up that his view of the ghe isn’t in accordance with physics
That’s correct bob — you can’t boil water with ice.
See, it’s not that hard to learn. One baby step at a time.
Now work on understanding that a car traveling around a curve is NOT rotating on its CoM axis.
We’ll get you there….
Clint R,
Is the car turning on the curve, changing direction, changing orientation?
Yeah, it’s rotating around its center of mass.
That’s why you feel a push towards the outside of the curve as you drive around the turn.
Because you are accelerating, your velocity vector is changing.
Oh snap, you can’t grok vectors.
Bill,
“Bob continues Play games with semantics to cover up that his view of the ghe isnt in accordance with physics”
In what way is my view of the GHE not in accordance with physics?
Explain how you would boil water by adding or wrapping water with ice to illustrate how you think the ghe works
Wrong bob. Changing direction is NOT axial rotation.
The force you feel during a turn is due to “centrifugal force”. The friction of the tires/road create a “centripetal force”, which must be balanced.
bob asks: “In what way is my view of the GHE not in accordance with physics?”
Glad to help, bob:
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”
Five more coming when I get time.
Bill,
“Explain how you would boil water by adding or wrapping water with ice to illustrate how you think the ghe works”
Sorry Bill, that’s not how I think the greenhouse effect works.
Try another strawman.
Clint R,
“Wrong bob. Changing direction is NOT axial rotation.”
Yes it is, you have to rotate around your center of gravity to change the direction of your motion.
In other words, when turning, you are changing your velocity vector, which means your velocity vector is rotating.
Wrong again, bob.
The car isn’t rotating about its CoG. It’s merely changing direction. The force applied by the friction of the tires/road changes the velocity vector. That is NOT axial rotation.
As a simple example, consider the car following a straight white line in the center of a straight road. The car is clearly NOT spinning. If the road curves, the car remains following the white line. Someone on the side of the road would only see one side of the car. If the car were spinning, someone on the side would see all sides of it.
I predict you STILL won’t be able to understand. So prove me right again. I can take it.
That’s what your Moon crank cult says Clint R, that’s why you are in a cult, you swallow that nonsense.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“If the car were spinning, someone on the side would see all sides of it.”
If they were standing on the outside of a circular curving track, yes, they would see all sides of the car, because it is spinning once for every lap around the track.
Cultist.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
wow Bob just signed off as a cultist!
A reminder that, when people deny science, their ultimate goal is, “Forget about objective truth; believe what we say is true.”
Here, too dishonest even for Fox News Tucker Carlson admits he’s “open” to theories that the moon landing was faked: https://youtu.be/vspj_LK44oE
being ”open” to other ideas is the opposite of being a closed minded sycophant.
I’m open to the theory that Gill is a child molester.
Perhaps I am in this forum.
Bill,
Good one.
[chuckle]
Forum? Perhaps?
What are you chucking about, Mike Flynn?
Willard plays his dense role to the hilt.
Bill, that’s not a role.
Now you are making me feel sorry for the guy.
Spoken like a child molester.
Denying science and reality is part of the Leftist agenda. They want to control “truth”.
The Moon-Landing denial nonsense is largely NASA’s own fault. They tried to hide the fact that some of their photos were staged. They got caught.
There’s little doubt in my mind that the landings actually occurred, but NASA needs to learn the importance of “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
They STILL haven’t learned that yet.
that was just the NASA press corp using the photo bank to jazz up their press releases. Running an organization is a lot like herding cats.
We would all like science to be clear of hidden agendas, but it ain’t happening.
NASA could clear up the moon nonsense in an instant, with one press release. But, all colleges and universities have swallowed the crap, for too long. Even NASA continues to promote it with website after website.
Of course, it’s the same for the AGW nonsense. NASA is as guilty as the corrupt IPCC.
Back to the moon landings, I forgot to mention that NASA lost much of the technical data related to the Apollo missions. Incompetence, corruption, or both?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
NASA is such a mess that only a significant reduction in funding would help.
Incompetence. It’s what happens when programs are canceled and nobody is left to manage the assets.
A subterranean reptile wrote this: ” A,
There is no instrumentation capable of measuring the total external radiation reaching the Earth. Such a measurement would be completely pointless in any case. If you dont understand why, you are demonstrating your cultist ignorance.”
I’ve told you once before that your argument is a straw man. This figure explains why https://imgur.com/a/XPhJ8aU.
Keep burrowing.
The curve of incoming on the right is based on Planck’s fantasy equation in which he used a probability element to de-emphasize higher frequencies intensities like UV. The curve on the left should be displayed as a pimple beside solar energy to portray it’s actual intensity.
Of course, alarmists think the IR curve actually peaks much higher than the solar curve.
BTW…have you answer the question of Tim S re the number of fairies that can be fit on the head of a pin. I am sure you too are an expert on such fairy tales.
“The curve on the left should be displayed as a pimple beside solar energy to portray its actual intensity.”
Nonsense!
1/ The Y-axis is clearly labeled “Relative Intensity.”
2/ The Earth being at considerably lower temperature than the sun does not emit in the same frequency range as the sun.
“Relative Intensity” is a joke. In order to make the two curves appear equal, they have divided solar by 4!
It’s a blatant perversion of reality. They want the sky to be Earth’s energy source!
Hey, Puffman.
Riddle me this –
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8?si=a3jjxUgwPSf5Ksdy
What is it so hard to understand for cranks like you?
There’s nothing wrong with learning about solid geometry, silly willy.
When you grow up, maybe you can also learn about radiative physics, and why flux can NOT be treated as energy.
I’m glad you admit being wrong, Puffman.
Do you feel better?
How many years will you continue to kid us with your eternal ‘ball on a string’-like pseudo-arguments?
You perfectly know that nobody divides the solar irradiance by 4.
1. At any moment of the day, the sun lits only half of the planet, but the whole planet still emits far IR even where the Sun no longer shines.
2. On the sunlit hemisphere, described by one degree latitudes from -90 till +90 and longitudes from -90 till +90, only the unit surface centred at [lat:0; long:0] obtains the maximal solar energy; all other unit surfaces decrease in latitude and longitude with the cosine of the radiation’s incidence angle.
Integrating this squared cosine weighting over both latitude and longitude halves the incident radiation on the hemisphere.
That is the reason why hitting a 2*pi*R^2 hemisphere with constant radiation perpendicular to that hemisphere gives the same result as hitting the pi*R^2 circular area behind the hemisphere.
*
You will never admit this. Just like you will never admit that your simple-minded ‘ball on a string’ motion has nothing in common with the real lunar motion.
Bindi claims: “You perfectly know that nobody divides the solar irradiance by 4.”
Solar constant is 1360 W/m^2. Solar constant divided by 4 is 340 W/m^2.
Sorry Bindi, but they must have done the division while you weren’t looking….
Yes, the 960 W/m^2 integrated over a hemisphere is 480 W/m^2. You got that correct. So why doesn’t your cult use 480 W/m^2? The answer is it would mean Earth is 303K, instead of the bogus 255K. Can’t have that!
And, for the 47th time, and counting, the ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without spin”. You don’t have such a model. You’ve got “model envy”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Hey Puffman –
Why do you ignore that bit?
Willard,
Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Yes child, that quote is Bindi explaining it to you, but he can’t understand it for you.
Maybe if you ever grow up?
Hey Puffman –
What’s half an half?
Clint R still didn’t get it.
The Sun lits only one hemisphere with radius R at a time, and integrating this over the hemisphere is the same as computing the energy received by the circular area with radius R.
But Earth emits long wave radiation over its entire sphere, even at night:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2023-12-20&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir
*
You can denŷ that as long as you want: your denŷal won’t change anything.
For a highly simplified Ein = Eout balance, look at
https://web.archive.org/web/20210605120431/https://scied.ucar.edu/earth-system/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate
For a less trivial evaluation, look at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
No one wants the sky to be the energy source: that is is your distorting invention, exactly like you distort the complex lunar motion discussion with your trivial ball on a string maipulation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m not Binny, Mike Flynn.
What are you braying about?
Solar constant is 1360 W/m^2. Solar constant divided by 4 is 340 W/m^2.
Sorry Bindi, but they must have done the division while you weren’t looking….
Yes, the 960 W/m^2 integrated over a hemisphere is 480 W/m^2. You got that correct. So why doesnt your cult use 480 W/m^2? The answer is it would mean Earth is 303K, instead of the bogus 255K. Can’t have that!
And, for the 48th time, and counting, the ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without spin” You don’t have such a model. You’ve got “model envy”.
ANY source you find from your cult is going to be making the same mistakes. They confuse flux with energy and power. Energy is the only one that can be added/subtracted/averaged. You can’t treat power and flux as energy. You will NEVER understand that, just like you will NEVER understand the simple ball-on-a-string. You don’t understand basic physics, and you can’t learn.
Oh Pupman.
You still do not know that the model is constrained by the surface by which it emits?
Gordo’s up early these days, spreading his usual disinformation. SEE:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579159
ES,
Maybe you could be helpful, then, and provide some factual information.
You could start with stating whether the GHE is supposed to make the planet hotter (not over the past four and a half billion years, obviously), colder (really?), or make no difference at all (that would be pretty pointless though).
In your relentless pursuit of truth, you must have found some facts relevant to the GHE, surely.
Correct any misinformation – provide some facts.
Flynnson, Gordo’s post to which I replied referred to the measurement of the TSI, not the GHE. Please do try to stay on topic. Misinformation corrected.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Climate pron
https://youtu.be/kZVeGpHU-ug
Earlier a Moon Dragon crank opined: there are so many similarities between an elliptical orbit and a circular one.
This is quite true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
But why take all the pain to devise such models when you can say “ball-on-string go brrr”?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Of course, the nonsense about cycles and epicycles upon epicycles turned out to be – nonsense.
Just more pointless “models”.
Some models are useful – climate models are just not among them.
Just like cycles and epicycles.
Mike Flynn,
“Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles.”
What are you braying about?
Willard, you idiot,
Planetary orbits are not circles. No amount of fantasy circles will approximate the motion of celestial bodies. That’s why astronomers no longer use them! Just like “climate models” – worthless!
Have you improved on your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Bray away, little jackass.
Mike Flynn,
Orbits are orbits.
Circles are circles.
What are you braying about?
Willard, you idiot,
Planetary orbits are not circles. No amount of fantasy circles will approximate the motion of celestial bodies. Thats why astronomers no longer use them! Just like “climate models” worthless!
Have you improved on your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Bray away, little jackass.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Willard, you idiot,
Planetary orbits are not circles. No amount of fantasy circles will approximate the motion of celestial bodies. Thats why astronomers no longer use them! Just like climate models worthless!
Have you improved on your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Bray away, little jackass.
Mike Dlynn,
Celestial bodies orbit.
Circles are mathematical objects.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson’s hâtred of NOAA, NASA/GISTEMP, MetOffice, Berkeley Earth, RemSS, etc. etc. always makes him look like a toro in the Spanish corrida, running endlessly and mindlessly against the torero’s red muleta.
No wonder then that we can once more measure Robertson’s mix of absolute ignorance and arrogance, when he writes:
” Does Binny ever produce any science of his own, or is his world related only to authority figures like NOAA?
Would you mind explaining how radiation can be measured in units such as w/m^2, where the watt is a derivative of mechanical horsepower hence a measure of mechanical work?
Heat can be stated as an equivalence of mechanical energy but not an equality. What then, is the relationship in w/m^2 between work and electromagnetic energy?
They wont tell you at NOAA or anywhere else on the Net since no one seems to know. ”
*
You can immediately see that Robertson always falls back on his beloved trivia (heat, work, electrons, ‘time doesn’t exist’, ‘the Moon can’t rotate about its polar axis because…’, etc etc) and discredits and denigrates anything that doesn’t fit his hopelessly uneducated narrative.
*
Instead, he just would need to inform himself about
– which units are used to measure solar, shortwave respectively terrestrial, longwave radiation flux density, and
– which devices measure them.
From the German ‘Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz’ for example:
” Power flux density
In the area of high-frequency radiation the power flux density is the measure of the strength of the radiation in the far field.
Its measuring unit is Watt per square metre (W/m).
It characterises the energy flowing per time unit through an area vertical to the distribution direction of the radiation. ”
*
Devices used for radiation measurement are
– for solar radiation (e.g. 0.3 μm to 3 μm): pyranometers;
– for terrestrial radiation (e.g. 4.5 µm to 50 µm): pyrgeometers.
https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/physical_monitoring/downloads/NetRadiometer_Kipp&Zone_CNR4.pdf
Usually, radiation measuring stations work with two of each: in addition to the expected upward looking pyranometer and the downward looking pyrgeometer, the second downward looking pyranometer measures the solar radiation reflected by the ground, and the upward looking pyrgeometer measures the terrestrial radiation reflected by the lower atmospheric layer.
*
A typical ‘pyrgeometer for everyone’ is for example:
https://environmental.senseca.com/wp-content/uploads/document/DeltaOHM_LPPIRG01_datasheet_ENG.pdf
*
But the SURFRAD stations are a little bit different:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/overview.html
*
We can be on this blog 100% sure that the antiscience denŷal troupe will once more rant against all these explanations.
Doesn’t matter!
What is the uncertainty for the measurement devices?
Why do you ask, instead of simply searching for sources matching “”surfrad uncertainty” ?
It’s easier to write “Binny is a monkey”, isn’t it?
*
I’m sorry, but you remind me WUWT’s uncertainty troupe (Tilman, Gorman, Monte Carlo, and a few other ‘specialists’) who use since years and years to persistently discredit any measurement instrument or technique they dislike – with a delicate hint on a possibly missing uncertainty processing.
None of them would ever search for a source contradicting their insinuations, of course! They just want to distillate doubt.
**
1. From SURFRAD Overview: Surface Radiation Budget Monitoring
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/overview.html
” SURFRAD has adopted the standards for measurement set by the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) which is sponsored by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Accuracies achievable for shortwave measurements are ~2% for pyrheliometers and ~5% for pyranometers–or 15 Watts/m2, whichever is the largest.
The best accuracy that is achievable for pyrgeometers is now at ~5 Watts/m2, which is a combination of the accuracy of the world standard and the uncertainty of the transfer.
These uncertainties are only valid if the radiometers are calibrated and operated according to BSRN specifications. To achieve these uncertainty goals in monitoring radiometers, the broadband solar instruments are calibrated NOAA in Boulder, Colorado using a cavity radiometer that is directly traceable to the World Radiometric Reference (WRR) at the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland.
Likewise, SURFRAD pyrgeometers are calibrated against three standard pyrgeometers whose calibrations are directly traceable to the World Infrared Standard Group (WISG) in Davos, Switzerland. At our test facility at Table Mountain near Boulder, Colorado, SURFRAD maintains three reference instruments of each type that the [] instruments are checked against before and after deployment. ”
*
2. An Update on SURFRADThe GCOS Surface Radiation Budget Network for the Continental United States
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/atot/22/10/jtech1806_1.xml
” In 2001, the instrument used for the diffuse solar measurement was replaced with a type of pyranometer that does not have a bias associated with infrared radiative cooling of its receiving surface.
Subsequently, biased diffuse solar data from 1996 to 2001 were corrected using a generally accepted method.
Other improvements include the implementation of a clear-sky diagnostic algorithm and associated products, better continuity in the ultraviolet-B (UVB) data record, a reduced potential for error in the downwelling infrared measurements, and development of an aerosol optical depth algorithm. ”
*
Assessing uncertainty undoubtedly is a major goal.
But bias minimization, achieved by endless device and data processing improvement, is a far more important activity.
“None of them would ever search for a source contradicting their insinuations, of course! They just want to distillate doubt.”
If you think they are simply just want to distillate doubt, then you clearly do not understand the full context of their argument. I came into the world in ’03, and I grasp that. With a touch of enlightenment, perhaps you can as well :-). I haven’t explored this with other sources of measurement, but I will later. It’s a very important aspect that has clearly been downplayed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/17/nasa-giss-data-shows-2023-el-nino-driving-global-temperature-anomaly-increases-noaa-data-shows-u-s-nov-2023-temperature-anomaly-declining/#comment-3834184
Scroll down from there. Maybe if you believe they are deliberately sowing uncertainty, you might express your viewpoint there and refrain from being a coward, as you accused me of being.
Walter, Bindi has been here for years and hasn’t learned a thing. He just attacks Skeptics, even though he understands none of the science. You have to consider his insults as evidence you’re on target.
His techniques are common among his cult.
I quickly realized that after reading his posts. He says he’s neither a ‘warmista’ or a ‘coolista’ but I truly wonder if that’s the case. When I discussed Arctic sea ice with him on this blog, we disagreed about the significance of September in determining the Arctic sea ice trend. His argument, as Robertson pointed out seemingly without cause below my comment, was not particularly convincing. It seems he may not grasp that as conditions approach the freezing point, temperature becomes a much more crucial factor in ice melt. This aspect is widely acknowledged, yet he seems inclined to attack skeptics, as you mentioned. I recall him receiving numerous downvotes on WUWT, often exceeding 40 or 50 votes. It’s possible he avoids participating there because he might not fare well in an argument. However, there’s a chance he’ll prove me wrong and join the discussion in the linked thread to support his alarmist friends who seem to be losing the argument quite badly
> Its possible he avoids participating there because he might not fare well in an argument.
Wanna bet, Walter?
Willard,
Yes, I’m up for betting. I have serious doubts he’ll accept and anticipate a feeble excuse. How about you jump in too? It seems your perspectives align more with the alarmist stance. I haven’t had the chance to engage you deeply on a topic where I feel more informed. I assure you of my respectful approach, though I can’t guarantee the same from other commentators.
Perhaps I was unclear, Walter.
The bet would be with me.
With the proper incentive, I can go at Tony’s.
Otherwise there’s no sport in it. Too easy. Makes me feel bad.
I still don’t understand you Willard. What do you mean the bet is with you? I need to lay off the whiskey.
*
Your proper incentive – the satisfying feeling of knowing you absolutely crushed your opponent!
Walter,
Nah. Last time I went and crushed the Monktopus. He just ran away.
Ok. It’s your decision after all. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Binny,
Rather than continuously criticising people, you could grow a pair, and describe the GHE!
Here’s what you said previously –
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
Well no, it doesn’t. In addition, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, GHE notwithstanding.
No problem, Ill just keep asking until you answer.
Flynnson
Once more, you behave like an absolute idîot.
I never intentionally wrote
” Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. ”
because I never would ever believe such nonsense.
Like bobdroege, I just wanted to kid you because you 100% deserve it.
*
It’s a wonder that commenter Tim S did not mention your pathological obsession to endlessly repeat and repeat this stûpid blah blah:
” In addition, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, GHE notwithstanding. ”
In three weeks over 400 Swenson posts in this Spencer thread, all full of your redundant trash.
Carry on, Flynnson!
take heart the skeptics are making progress!
Bill,
Binny wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote”Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Never intentionally wrote? The nonsense just erupted all by itself while he was hammering his keyboard – and he didn’t notice!
He thinks that anybody will believe him when he says “Like bobdroege, I just wanted to kid you because you 100% deserve it.”
Oh dear, Binny now says that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie. between the sun and a thermometer) does NOT make the thermometer hotter!
What is binny trying to say – more CO2 makes the surface colder? It does, actually, along with things like water vapour, which John Tyndall realised over 100 years ago.
It would be interesting to find out how Bindidon describes the effect of the GHE now that he has admitted the silliness of his previous assertion “increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”.
He could accept reality, I suppose, and write “ncreasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer COLDER”
Or he could just run round in circles, admitting nothing, and lashing out in all directions!
Nates source essentially verified what I have thought all along.
He offered as proof for the effects of CO2 a paper that line by line examined the models, going through the physical processes.
the paper concluded that if saturated (which means can it warm simply by blocking more IR) then it would depend upon if the basic model of the atmosphere being wrong for it to work. That requires the atmosphere lapse rate to have already been changed by CO2 as if it hasn’t then its not going to form the hot spot that would slow the convection response that feeds warm air to TOA in the same way it feeds cold air to the surface.
That process we see accelerates every afternoon when the sun gets high.
Going this new route was necessitated by the embarrassment of heavily promoting the 3rd grader radiation model in the presence of experimental failure at every attempt. Gradually the public is becoming aware of these failures. And observations have not backed up modtran. the explanation for that is heat is going through the surface oceans like the invisible man goes through walls and thus there is a building imbalance; while respectable scientists cry out for adjusting the expectations to observations.
Models are black boxes so as to avoid essentially making a commitment to a certain process. This way models can be adjusted without the public realizing they are searching for the answer rather than know the answer.
Bill interprets a paper that clearly explains and demonstrates the GHE in detail, as somehow supporting his views. OK.
Nate says:
”Bill interprets a paper that clearly explains and demonstrates the GHE in detail, as somehow supporting his views. OK.”
Indeed the paper explains the GHE in detail. But the paper isn’t a demonstration of anything. Its a mathematical analysis of the physics behind the ”higher results in less emissions and thus warming the surface” logic of model theory.
The conclusion was if the state of the atmosphere is not as long believed it is (by meteorologists) then warming may occur from CO2.
Of course the public has never really viewed the atmosphere as meteorologists view it. Amateurs like Nate and the rest of the warmist mob in here have always viewed it like the public does. Which makes the M&W theory quite plausible to them. That was confirmed. But Meteorologists don’t agree with the public view.
For instance Nate in here claimed that the isothermic atmosphere hypothesis was false.
the isothermic hypothesis basically says that in the absence of water the atmosphere the profile of the atmosphere is determined by pressure. Well we do know that water is always in the atmosphere so there is no atmospheric test for that. But there is no reason to think that CO2 can do what water does in changing the lapse rate. So meteorologists have a lapse rate for a ”relatively” dry atmosphere and one for a wet atmosphere and have estimated a ”standard” atmosphere in between the two.
Only the 3rd grader radiation model team imagined that CO2 would be capable of changing the lapse rate and thus create a hot spot in the atmosphere.
they believe that so much it was the main tool used by Gore, Bill Nye the Science Guy and many many others to instruct the public on how the GHE works. Years ago I even found it on the University of Harvard website.
But all that has been whitewashed away and its very difficult to find such imaginations today. No doubt as a result of various amateur experiments and discussion being convincing.
It also explains why so many leading skeptics are meteorologists. Anthony Watts for example. We also have a history of firing a lot of official state meteorologist for being heretics.
I had a minor in meteorology at one point in my college career taking a few upper division courses to enhance my desire for an education in ocean sciences where meteorology plays such a huge role.
Perhaps those interested can start with Nate’s favorite paper (read the conclusion about the likelihood that the GHE works based on emissions height)
this conclusion convinced Nate that the GHE worked so he posted this as his proof because as he stated in this comment section
”Is it isothermal?
No. So that is quite pointless.”
which raises the question why is it a caveat in this paper?
Well the reason is this:
The definition of an isothermic atmosphere is:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Isothermal_atmosphere
Thus if this is false (e.g. only hydrostatic equilibrium needs to be present then CO2 won’t change the lapse rate, thus will not develop a hot spot, and thus the M&W application of Arrhenius isn’t supported by science.) Of course thats all that G&T ever claimed, namely they couldn’t find an established physics path to proof of the GHE effect of CO2 either.
the other condition is that the atmospheric CO2 effect is saturated. This has long been another skeptic argument. Unless the sky is further blocked by CO2, meaning essentially the atmospheric window. this has mathematically been tested and without CO2 warming the atmosphere there are only about another couple of tenths of degree to saturation.
So we know science isn’t depending on that either as the theory is the hot spot theory which remains unsupported by science.
And all this is without feedback. Feedback over all is negative as maintained by Lindzen, Spencer, and just about anybody that knows how to read an energy budget along with some rudimentary knowledge of how convection works with regards to atmospheric stability. Yet these thought experiment wonky theory of Arrhenius simply won’t go away like UFO Area 51 Theories.
Bill,
” Its a mathematical analysis of the physics behind the higher results in less emissions and thus warming the surface logic of model theory.
Which was the argument I was making. And neither you nor DREMT offered any sensible rebuttal to this.
In addition I showed you direct evidence from Earth’s IR emission to space that the model’s predictions agree with observations.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html
Again, neither you nor DREMT rebut this.
Your observations support that CO2 emissions are coming from above the clouds in the tropopause, stratosphere, and mesosphere.
Take the stratosphere for example the temperature profile is inverted. Its hotter at the top than the bottom. Why doesn’t CO2 even warm the bottom of the stratosphere when above its hotter?
“stratosphere, and mesosphere.”
CO2 is opaque up to around the tropopause, not in the stratosphere.
What is your source on that Nate. I was told that CO2 optical thickness says there are 20 opaque layers of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the tropopause is a 200hPa that means there are 4 opaque layers of CO2 at or above the tropopause. I certainly could be wrong as I didn’t get a chance to verify what I was told.
But we do know that:
Cloud tops and water vapor delineate the start of the tropopause and its thickness. The thickness is really just a variation of that point in the atmosphere where water condenses into clouds and above that there is very little water vapor. The thickness is a temporal variation in its height. Namely a variation related to latitude and initial surface temperature.
That there is a great deal of overlap of frequencies abs-orbed by water and CO2.
That the final emission temperature of CO2 is much colder than the cloud tops. . .so we probably aren’t looking at the tropopause of the stratosphere.
But a nice verified science source from you might serve to change my mind.
You don’t seem to know where you are going with this.
Your post didn’t go anywhere at all Nate.
Binny…”From the German Bundesamt fr Strahlenschutz for example:
Power flux density
In the area of high-frequency radiation the power flux density is the measure of the strength of the radiation in the far field.
Its measuring unit is Watt per square metre (W/m).
It characterises the energy flowing per time unit through an area vertical to the distribution direction of the radiation. ”
***
Once again, Binny rushes off to authority figures without understanding the question. Watts/metre^2 does not characterize the energy flowing per unit time since the watt represent a unit of mechanical work and electromagnetic energy cannot do that much work in its form as electromagnetic energy.
Heat can be rated in watts per metre^2 only because it has an equivalent in work. At no time can heat be claimed to raise a mass in a certain period of time because heat does not have that ability to do work. Only mechanical energy can raise a mass. Heat can raise the pressure of steam to do work but it cannot do that work by itself.
The measure of w/m^2 applied to EM presumes that EM and heat are the same energy and they are not. Furthermore, it suggests that EM is the same energy as mechanical energy, that can actually do work. I find the claim to be absurd.
The scientist Joule found an equivalence between heat and work, not an equality. He ran a small paddle in a container of water and measured the increase in water temperature. He did not conclude that heat and work are the same energy, only that the mechanical work caused a rise in temperature with an equivalence to the amount of work done.
The heat does not come from the mechanical work done by the paddle but from the paddle breaking weak hydrogen bonds and heat being released from the broken bonds. Therefore, the water is actually releasing its own energy, producing the warming.
There is no doubt a relationship between EM and work that can be produced “IF” it is absorbed by a mass. But then it is no longer EM, but heat. That depends on the 2nd law. I seriously doubt that EM can produce the work claimed, especially in the range of 300 w/m^s which is equivalent to 3/4 horsepower over that m^2. Such a motor, at 3/4 horsepower, can power a saw to cut through a 2 x 4 easily.
Based on that analogy, we should be able to harness a square metre of ice to power a saw that will cut through a 2 x 4.
binny…”Devices used for radiation measurement are
for solar radiation (e.g. 0.3 μm to 3 μm): pyranometers;
for terrestrial radiation (e.g. 4.5 m to 50 m): pyrgeometers”.
***
Once again, Binny does not understand the point made, Both Swenson and I claimed there is no instrument that can measure the entire EM spectrum. The meters listed above can only measure in a small region of the infrared spectrum. Note that it takes two of them to cover that tiny portion of the EM spectrum.
Robertson’s absolutely ignorant reply post
” Once again, Binny rushes off to authority figures without understanding the question. ”
was 100% predictable: his knowledge level didn’t change since Clausius (in 1854) and Bohr.
It’s by the way always a pleasure to see him talking about ‘authority figures’! He doesn’t even understand that he himself is the one who relies the most on them (let’s add Tesla, Wood, Essen, Lanka, etc).
*
” Watts/metre^2 does not characterize the energy flowing per unit time since the watt represent a unit of mechanical work and electromagnetic energy cannot do that much work in its form as electromagnetic energy. ”
Incredible. He can’t escape the 19th century…
*
And his next try to teach us is even better:
” Once again, Binny does not understand the point made, Both Swenson and I claimed there is no instrument that can measure the entire EM spectrum. The meters listed above can only measure in a small region of the infrared spectrum. Note that it takes two of them to cover that tiny portion of the EM spectrum. ”
*
If Robertson had a bit of brain, he would have himself looked at correct sources, indicating that
– there is NO PROBLEM at all to cover solar, far IR and beyond using only one device,
BUT that
– using devices specialized for solar and far IR reduces bias and uncertainty.
Kraut engineers around me name that ‘Nützliche Redundanz’.
*
The very best of all is that he still believes that N2 and O2 ’emit IR’, and that O2’s emissions in the 60 GHz microwave range (5000 micron) really matter.
He never has understood that Earth’s major far IR range is around 10 micron… exactly in the middle of the atmospheric window.
*
Anyone who credulously absorbs Robertson’s pseudoscience 100% deserves it.
Dilbert strikes again
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/img_1_1702487088175.jpg
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This man has been shoveling sh*t for years.
https://www.themarysue.com/anyone-saying-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-career-collapsed-overnight-hasnt-been-paying-attention/
Willard,
That’s a link, not a man doing anything.
How are you going with your GHE description – getting any further than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
That’s braying, you’re not saying anything.
Willard,
Thats a link, not a man doing anything.
How are you going with your GHE description getting any further than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
That’s repeating your braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
For those climate change deniers who think they are merely taking a skeptical view of the science, this “latest study” in the final proof that climate change is real and already happening:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/octopus-dna-antarctic-ice-sheet-closer-to-collapse-than-previously-thought/
“The findings suggest the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is closer to collapse than previously thought, threatening 3.3-5 meters of long term sea level rise if the world is unable to hold human-caused warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement, said the authors.”
“This study provides empirical evidence indicating that the WAIS collapsed when the global mean temperature was similar to that of today, suggesting that the tipping point of future WAIS collapse is close”
“It’s also not clear whether the sea level rise would be drawn out over millennia or occur in more rapid jumps.
But uncertainties such as these can’t be an excuse for inaction against climate change “and this latest piece of evidence from octopus DNA stacks one more card on an already unstable house of cards,” they wrote.”
Good find, Tim S. It is so ridiculous you should have saved it for April 1st.
But, thanks for sharing it early.
Why don’t you get your facts straight, Tim S.? Antarctica saw an increase in sea ice extent, reaching a record high in 2014. If you knew what ‘uncertainties’ actually meant in the context of the climate, you wouldn’t have written your alarmist nonsense.
The joke is on you if you took it seriously. All I did was post a genuine “news” story from CBS. If it bothers you, then it is on them, not me. Do you really think octopus DNA proves climate change?
Yikes…
I should read more carefully.
It’s OK Walter, we all succumb to it, Problem is, alarmists succumb to it regularly.
Oh no!! Don’t tell me – IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!
Quick, run away as fast as you can!
What a pack of buffoons!
One of the idiots even subscribes to this fantasy – “Once these ice shelves melt, theres nothing to stop the glaciers behind them from flowing into the sea.”
Oh yes, floating sea ice can stop an ice river flowing downhill! That’s sarcasm, of course.! Floating ice floats, believe it or not. It can “hold back” nothing.
“The largest volcanic region on Earth, with nearly 100 volcanoes, has been discovered two km below the surface of the vast ice sheet in west Antarctica”. What’s more likely to melt ice? CO2 or volcanoes? If the most volcanic region on Earth has a couple of kms of ice over it, “global warming” is a minor consideration.
Seems like interesting research. As they correctly noted, it is just one piece of evidence, and doesnt address the question of how long the melt will require.
So not sure why people are moaning about it.
Nutty Nate,
Who’s moaning? That’s laughter, you dingleberry!
Nate, anyone who is paying attention can see this is pure BS. It is a classic case of hype exceeding the science:
“But uncertainties such as these cant be an excuse for inaction against climate change”
Really?
If you read it objectively, it makes a clear case that, since the WAIS has not yet collapsed, it WAS warmer during the last glacial minimum:
“The history of genetic mixing indicated WAIS collapsed at two separate points — first in the mid-Pliocene, 3-3.5 million years ago, which scientists were already confident about, and the last time in a period called the Last Interglacial, a warm spell from 129,000 to 116,000 years ago.”
must be a lie! al gore said it is hotter now than at anytime in the last 450,000 years.
Not so, Tim. If you present a link representing your belief system, then it’s on you. Problem for me with your posts is that it’s not clear which side you are on.
I am on the side of science. CO2 is increasing due to fossil burning. It should add to the existing “greenhouse effect”, and increase the existing surface warming and upper atmosphere cooling effects. The magnitude of these effects are difficult to measure in a dynamic environment let alone simulate. Much of what is presented as fact on both “sides” is conjecture. A thorough and rigorous examination of the available science and data leads to no clear conclusion. There is no clear distinction between random weather events, weather variability, natural climate change, and anthropogenic climate effects. The science is in a period of development with no clear conclusion for either “side”.
Tim,
You wrote “It should add to the existing “greenhouse effect””.
One problem is that nobody can describe this “greenhouse effect”. Is it supposed to heat the planet? Obviously not for the last four and a half billion years of planetary cooling!
So what is this “greenhouse effect”? Care to have a shot at describing it?
Tim S says: It [CO2] should add to the existing “greenhouse effect”, and increase the existing surface warming and upper atmosphere cooling effects.
Tim S, you’re not on the side of science if you accept cult beliefs. There is NO physics that supports the bogus GHE. In fact, REAL physics indicates adding CO2 would result in cooling, even if very slightly.
Cult minded Clint R
What “REAL” physics suggests adding CO2 will result in surface cooling. You are abundant with unsupported opinions (nearly every post with insults in nearly everyone as well, not much on intelligent discussion and providing evidence for claims)
Lots of “REAL” physics supports GHE, your unsupported opinions do not really change the facts or reality. You can convince some of your false physics. It is sad when you peddle an opinion more do not call you out and demand evidence. This is not the Trump Party where any made up opinion (no facts needed) is real and valid truth. This is science (a word you do not understand at all) which requires evidence. I have provided you with mountains of evidence and like your hero Trump all you get is “fake news” but no valid explanation of why your think it is fake…you know like measured values from ESRL web site. You claim I do not understand them. Truth is you do not know what they show and demonstrate a failure with your “a link he does not understand”. Such empty nothing phrases mean a lot to cults but they are not science.
You will never understand science as all you know is insults, made up fantasy physics with zero supporting evidence (nitrogen gas reflects IR) and cult minded opinons.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Lots of REAL physics supports GHE, your unsupported opinions do not really change the facts or reality.”
You can’t describe the GHE, nor even say what it is supposed to do, so saying that anything supports the GHE is a wee bit silly.
What is the GHE supposed to do? Bindidon says it doesn’t make thermometers hotter, Willard says it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”. Maybe you could give your version?
How hard can it be?
Questioning the way science is applied and communicated to the public is skepticism. Claiming that well established science, such as heat transfer (yes, heat) by thermal radiation in the gas phase, does not exist, is not skepticism. That is something else entirely, and not supportive of the genuine work done by many scientists to investigate the claims that “heat trapping gases” pose a threat to human existence, or that eating beef contributes to sea level rise.
Tim S,
You must have missed my previous request, so I’ll repeat it –
Tim,
You wrote “It should add to the existing greenhouse effect”.
One problem is that nobody can describe this “greenhouse effect”. Is it supposed to heat the planet? Obviously not for the last four and a half billion years of planetary cooling!
So what is this “greenhouse effect”? Care to have a shot at describing it?
For the record, the greenhouse gases transfer heat based on their spectrum and temperature. Everyone who attended a college level physics program, paid attention in class, and most importantly passed the final exams, has a chance to understand what is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere. Others may find it extremely difficult.
Merry Christmas!
Tim S posted this article:
”Its also not clear whether the sea level rise would be drawn out over millennia or occur in more rapid jumps.
But uncertainties such as these cant be an excuse for inaction against climate change ”and this latest piece of evidence from octopus DNA stacks one more card on an already unstable house of cards,” they wrote.”
So its not clear here if they are suggesting that the world was inhabited by CO2 emitting Martians that caused temperatures to rise in the regular pattern seen in interglacials, or if the mission of climate change is now to reverse natural climate change in favor of some pre-industrial climate. Seems as if they are trying to keep a foot in both boats.
they also didn’t make a case in the articles surrounding this paper as to how DNA analysis was able to distinguish between low levels of population mix and sudden massive mixing. Unique DNA can result from both. . .doing so by natural selection that can change the ”typical” DNA of population of species in a matter of a few generations via different environmental conditions favoring say a recessive gene that is rare among the migrating fish. Perhaps they make that case in the paywalled paper, but it would be interesting reading a lot more at how they arrived at their conclusions.
there is no great mystery in established science. What is rare are scientists not so bound up by dogma and obedience to their daddies that they still have the balls to go against the establishment, open their eyes, and become the rare scientist who actually discovers something.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
.Bill,
“Bob continues Play games with semantics to cover up that his view of the ghe isnt in accordance with physics”
In what way is my view of the GHE not in accordance with physics?”
Here’s bobdroege’s view of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
No, reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer does not make it hotter, bob. The thermometer actually gets colder, which is why bobdroege falls back on playing “silly semantic games”, trying to look intelligent.
Swenson,
Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time.
Even at night.
Yep like Nate turning on more lights at the football stadium no doubt. LMAO!
That was originally me with the
It’s Friday Night Lights, not Friday Night Light!
Moar lights, moar brighter.
Nate and bob have so little understanding of the physics involved they believe more spotlights can make it brighter means ice cubes can boil water!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R thinks spotlights are ice cubes, that’s why this is so fun.
Shown that the real world evidence that fluxes from different sources hitting the same surface SUM, Clint just sputters insults.
He has no answers.
An actual adult would face reality and stop pushing crap that ain’t selling.
Nate is just winging it here as usual and has never taken an architectural course in space lighting.
In space lighting technology you position directional lighting so as to not overlap the focal points of the light or you are wasting energy. the only reason to overlap the focal points is for the purpose of eliminating shadows.
this is especially important for recessed lighting and spot lighting where the light is directionally focused.
For globed bulbs the light spreads without a focal point. the lighting then suffers unevenness in the room because of varying distances from that single bulb invoking the square distance law.
So yes a light above the poles would improve the lighting of the earth not because of the square distance law so much but because of the angles of the surfaces of the earth to the light source vary to the max.
But its funny how simple uneducated minds work. And of course that is why spreading the light evenly on a surface is very difficult to do and one needs to take a course in the matter to design good architectural space lighting.
But Nate doesn’t even seem to master the idea that filling the sky with 1380w/m2 light bulbs by vastly increasing the energy needed is really just finding a way to deal with eliminating the effect of the square distance law. At least the 3rd grader radiation model realized to get a uniform light in the sky it had to divide by solar constant by 4 so as to place every surface essentially perpendicular to the light and fill the sky with light.
But I am sure Nate is still struggling with that as well and actually believes a low level fog will increase the light.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1579438
bobdroege,
Not according to people like Professor John Tyndall, and every experimenter who has followed him!
The temperature on the CO2-free Moon reaches more than 125 C. Maximum temperature on the Earth due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun – 80 C?
Sure, bobby. You think your fantasies are superior to fact. Typical GHE cultist.
Accept reality, if you dare!
Swenson,
How hot would Death Valley get with 2 continuous weeks of sunshine?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Answer the question DR EMPTY
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I note that bobdroege is still trying to avoid looking like a complete dingleberry, by refusing to commit himself to anything specific.
Above is his latest evasion about the GHE –
“Sorry Bill, thats not how I think the greenhouse effect works.”
What a dumb comment! Bobdroege doesn’t “think” at all. He can’t even describe the GHE!
He wrote about it previously –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
No wonder the US Navy was hesitant to put bobby in charge of a nuclear submarine – or probably anything more complicated than a light switch (or a mop).
What a dummy he is!
Dear Swenson,
I have already described the greenhouse effect for you.
In more complicated versions than the “more better moar hotter”
But you just don’t listen.
So go have sex with yourself, obviously no women want anything to do with you.
Bumbling bobby,
I see. Your description “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” Is a simplified version of something which you can’t bring yourself to describe – because it’s too secret, no doubt.
You’re a buffoon, who has been caught out being both ignorant and gullible, claiming that you can describe a GHE better than “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
I certainly hope so. “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” makes no sense at all.
Carry on bumbling, bobby.
Swenson, I already gave you your bowl of Maypo.
So don’t be a little piggy and keep asking for more.
bobdroege,
You wrote “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
I don’t blame you for resorting to juvenile attempts at trolling to avoid taking responsibility for what you wrote. Pretty silly, wasn’t it?
Swenson,
You still want to remind people that I was making fun of you.
You want to wallow in it some moar?
”Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better”
I don’t know if Bob said that but the whole mob in here attacked the S&O experiment that tested that notion and found it be false. Why would they do that if that isn’t what they believe?
Yeah, I said it, and Swenson hasn’t debunked it to date.
I’ll stand by that statement until someone proves it to be false.
S&O failed to find an effect, that doesn’t mean it’s falsified.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Sorry DR EMPTY, but Swenson doesn’t share his Maypo, you will have to procure your own.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Much earlier, Nutty Nate wrote –
“”Newtons cannonball. One face (the bottom) constantly facing the COG of the Earth.”
How do you know that? Show us the figure illustrating that.
I know you wont.
Because there is none. And this is pure fantasy.”
The nutter doesn’t accept reality, and is either too lazy, ignorant, or incompetent to look up Newton’s “De Mundi Sytemate” which contains the graphic.
The nutter also demands “How do you know that” – a typical outburst by a GHE cultist who has been caught out, and doesnt want to admit it.
GHE cultists are perfectly at liberty to believe anything they want. Presenting their nuttery as fact can be expected to draw criticism.
I’ve seen it. Thats why I knew you wouldn’t show it.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-would-it-take-to-shoot-a-cannonball-into-orbit/
There is no ball with a face, to face anything, los.er.
As usual your assertions are BS.
Nutty Nate,
If you don’t want to believe that the Moon (or any other body sharing the Moon’s motion) shows only one face to the surface – the bottom as it falls towards the Earth, that’s OK.
Maybe some other people of your ilk might believe you.
Good luck.
nate…according to this article, the launching of satellites into orbits is a hoax because we don’t have a mountain high enough to launch them. Note that most orbiting satellites are heavier than a cannon ball.
The trick is to get the orbiting mass at a high-enough tangential velocity that it will counteract the slight gravitational force at that altitude. The tangential velocity has to be in a ratio with the vertical fall of the device of 8000 metres/5metres. If that can be accomplished, the mass will remain in orbit at the same altitude.
This presumes the mass can be launched to an altitude where air resistance is zero.
brain not working yet (a setup for we willy)…I stated velocity in metres when I intended to say the distance covered at that velocity.
Note that gravity at that altitude is so weak that it doesn’t really accelerate a body as much as drag it at a fairly constant velocity.
Sure Gordon, but none of that helps Swenson with his FAKE claim about Newton’s cannonball.
“If you dont want to believe that the Moon..”
Oh, so when you said: “Newtons cannonball. One face (the bottom) constantly facing the COG of the Earth.”, you actually meant ‘THE MOON’?
LOS.ER.
Nutty Nate, you obviously have a problem reading further than a few words in a row.
If you dont want to believe that the Moon (or any other body sharing the Moons motion) shows only one face to the surface the bottom as it falls towards the Earth, thats OK.
Do you really have the attention span of a slightly dim goldfish, or are you just being silly?
In either case, others are free to form their own opinions.
It seems that the Space Age started the global climate cargo cult.
{Or it certainty wasn’t the father of global warming.}
gb…how’s things going down there in the desert? Fairly mild up here on the West Coast this time of year.
It’s keeping well above 0 C and was raining today- tonight low: 6 C [42 F].
No snow for Christmas, apparently.
But, maybe, Sunday about 1 C and Monday is 2 C in terms night time forecast low.
That pretty cool for southern California, isn’t it? Here, it is currently 2C, from a high of 6C, but we’re about 2500 miles north of you. In San Diego, on the coast, it’s 12C. I presume you’re north of San Diego. Last time you mentioned, you were well inland in a desert region.
Goes to show the amazing variations in climate on this planet.
Christmas Eve is mostly clear skies and should get to 32 F tonite.
There is a little bit of snow on the local hills.
Anyhow, the hottest place in the world, does get cold.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The marine-based West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is considered vulnerable to irreversible collapse under future climate trajectories, and its tipping point may lie within the mitigated warming scenarios of 1.5 to 2C of the United Nations Paris Agreement. Knowledge of ice loss during similarly warm past climates could resolve this uncertainty, including the Last Interglacial when global sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today and global average temperatures were 0.5 to 1.5C warmer than preindustrial levels. Using a panel of genome-wide, single-nucleotide polymorphisms of a circum-Antarctic octopus, we show persistent, historic signals of gene flow only possible with complete WAIS collapse. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that the tipping point of WAIS loss could be reached even under stringent climate mitigation scenarios.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade0664
Absolute pseudo-scientific c.l.a.p.t.r.a.p.
Read my post below yours.
“The marine-based West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is considered vulnerable to irreversible collapse under future climate trajectories, . . . ”
Only in the fantasy world. In the real world, ice sheets do not “collapse”. Just emotive GHE cult garbage.
Some people are exceptionally gullible, and will greedily slurp up any pap served to them.
Mike Flynn,
Keep braying:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/ice-sheets-collapse-far-faster-than-feared-study-climate-crisis
Cheers.
Willard,
“Collapse” is just cultist jargon – as used by journalists at the Guardian, and pseudo-scientists.
You need to read what you appeal to as authority. When ice is floating, it does not “collapse”. When it melts, sea levels do not rise, even though the NSF took several years to finally admit that Archimedes’ principle applied, even outside Greece!
Maybe you are just confused.
Otherwise, you would probably not describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”
Carry on your discordant braying.
[hee-haw]
Mike Flynn,
The Antarctica once was a tropical region.
No, not in the sense of being in the tropics.
In the sense of being really hot.
What are you braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
The Antarctica once was a tropical region.
No, not in the sense of being in the tropics.
In the sense of being really hot.
What are you braying about”
Exactly. Antarctica has cooled, hasn’t it?
Is this an example of your GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
Mike Flynn,
The Antarctica once was a tropical region.
No, not in the sense of being in the tropics.
In the sense of being really hot.
What are you braying about
Exactly. Antarctica has cooled, hasnt it?
Is this an example of your GHE not cooling, slower cooling?”
Why?
Willard,
“Collapse is just cultist jargon as used by journalists at the Guardian, and pseudo-scientists.
You need to read what you appeal to as authority. When ice is floating, it does not “collapse”.. When it melts, sea levels do not rise, even though the NSF took several years to finally admit that Archimedes principle applied, even outside Greece!
Maybe you are just confused.
Otherwise, you would probably not describe the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling.
Carry on your discordant braying.
[hee-haw]
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard says:
”The research, published in the journal Nature, used high-resolution mapping of the sea bed off Norway, where large ice sheets collapsed into the sea at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago.”
A natural process when recovering from a glacial period. Our latest and tiny glacial advance period ended only about 160 years ago. So that would suggest we are in the early stages of recovery as that hasn’t happened yet and clearly we are NOT talking about glacial advance volumes that came from 100,000 year long glacial period that was probably about 7C colder than the bottom of your last glacial advance.
The Chicken Little nursery rhyme really had an important basis in education. When did they stop teaching it Willard?
Gill ignores the point being made. What else is new?
Ice sheets do collapse.
Define collapse, the sea level rise it caused, the time scale the event required. . .you know the basics. I realize Willard words are little toys for you to play with, but this blog is the blog of a scientist and not a chicken little.
Define define.
Gill says this is a science blog, and then spouts nonsense and rants about the gubmint.
Willard desperately tries to change the topic to talk about some other thread as he has no case to make, thus proving all he is is a chicken little running around screaming the sky is falling.
Gill sincerely believes that responding to Mike’s silly comment, which has kicked in this thread, is off topic.
A Great Epistemologist we got there!
Willard ice sheets don’t necessarily collapse unless you want to say glacial melting and calving is a collapse. You haven’t defined what you mean. Yes glaciers come and go by melting. Humans have witnessed the greatest melt back and calving of glaciers in the late 19th century. What we have seen in the late 20th century to the present is less than that. But I suppose it doesn’t take much ignorance for Chickin Little to start running around like his head was cut off.
I already posted this story with a link from CBS news. Anyone who believes DNA from an octopus proves that climate change is real and already happening, deserves to be misled in many other ways. The story just proves how gullible people can be, and most importantly, that those pushing climate change hype have no shame.
I already posted this story with a link from CBS news. Anyone who believes DNA from an octopus proves that climate change is real and already happening, deserves to be misled in many other ways. The story just proves how gullible people can be, and most importantly, that those pushing the climate change narrative have no shame.
testing…can’t post…
The pseudo-science presented in such articles (by Tim S above…December 22, 2023 at 3:59 PM) is that the ice shelves are melting. Not one of them goes into why the ice shelves are there in the first place.
Ice shelves form when glaciers push ice downhill toward the ocean. At the ocean, the glaciers continue to push the ice shelves out and over the water, so the shelves are literally hanging in free space although submerged partially in water. There is only so far such a mass of ice can be pushed out over an ocean before collapsing from its own weight.
However, while hanging out there, the shelves are subjected to massive wave action, with some Antarctic waves reaching 100 feet in height. Some of the shelves are protected to a degree by ice floes that help counter the wave action, but the flows are subjected to ocean currents and flow away from the ice shelves, exposing them.
Eventually, these massive walls of ice, hanging essentially in free air, succumb to gravity and wave action and simply sheer off in a well-known process in geology known as calving.
So much for the alarmist theory that ice shelves break off due to warming. When asked about glaciers melting in Antarctic, polar expert Duncan Wingham, himself an alarmist, claimed it is far too cold for glaciers to melt in Antarctica. Well, guess what? It’s also far too cold for ice shelves to melt, since they are attached to said glaciers.
You are describing an equilibrium, with ice flowing off the land into a floating ice sheet at the same rate as calving erodes the outer edge. Sometime the erosion is gradual. Sometimes large structures break off and regrow over decades.
The key point is that Antarctica used to gain ice by precipitation at the same rate at which it lost ice to the ocean, so sea levels remained stable.
The current concern is that two changes are happening.
In the short term the ice shelves are losing mass faster as the edges retreat towards the shore and their thickness is reduced by melting from below.
In the longer term the loss of the floating ice sheets allows more ice to flow off the land than precitates. This net loss of ice adds more ice volume to the oceans and increases sea level.
EM,
You wrote-
“You are describing an equilibrium, with ice flowing off the land into a floating ice sheet at the same rate as calving erodes the outer edge.”
No, that’s you putting words in his mouth.
And –
“The key point is that Antarctica used to gain ice by precipitation at the same rate at which it lost ice to the ocean, so sea levels remained stable.” No, that’s complete nonsense. Antarctica used to be ice free. Then it became really, really, cold, and accumulated lots and lots of ice.
Where did the water to make the ice come from? The oceans! Unless you have a different hypothesis, of course!
Sea levels rise and fall, as do continents themselves. The geoid is constantly changing.
No equilibrium. No GHE. Just absurd and fickle Nature at work.
wee willy…”Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles.
***
Fourier uses sine waves and cosine wave, not epicycles. When was the last time you saw an the ratio of side on a triangle rated in epicycles?
Cool story, Bordo:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/chao-dyn/9907004.pdf
Wistful Wee Willy,
“in the search of the Fourier coefficients”, – which proved fruitless.
Maybe you should try to understand what you read, before you attempt to appeal to it!
Is this the support for your odd notion that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
You above all keeps proving your pointlessness.
Keep braying!
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy posts a link that doesn’t work to defend a red-herring argument.
Based on this comment, the author is suggesting the Greeks had access to Fourier transforms centuries before Fourier himself devised the method.
“Greek astronomy, thus, consisted in the search of the Fourier coefficients of the quasi periodic motions of the heavenly bodies representing them geometrically by means of uniform motions”.
How the heck did they know to search for coefficients long before the method was known?
A Fourier transform tries to convert a signal in the time domain to one in the frequency domain. A simply example is a square wave function defined in the time domain. In the time domain, the representation is amplitude versus time. Therefore a square wave function would maybe be zero volts, or thereabouts, from t = 0 to t = 5, rise to 5 volts abruptly, maintain that level for 1 second, then fall abruptly back to 0 volts.
Fourier emulates that time domain function using a series of sine and cosine wave function where the sine function and cosine function are in the frequency domain. That’s the frequency domain since it is amplitude vs frequency as in radian measure. If you look at the x-axis for a sine wave it is measured in cycles of pi, not time. It could be measured in time but the sine wave cycles in terms of pi where a full cycle is 2pi.
So, Fourier tries to build a square wave in the time domain out of the addition of sine and cosine waves in the frequency domain. That’s how Fourier is applied in a software synthesizer.
It’s actually all related to a branch of mathematics where polynomials are depicted as a series. Theoretically, if you can add a series of sine and cosine terms you can form any required shape.
I seriously doubt that ancient Greeks were aware of such a series and I fail to grasp why modernists would infer such an insight. Unless, of course, their grasp of mathematics was seriously limited.
> Based on this comment, the author is suggesting the Greeks had access to Fourier transforms centuries before Fourier himself devised the method.
Cool story Bordo:
Op. Cit.
Funny what one could learn by reading.
One day you might take up on this.
To read an article one firsts needs a link where one can read it. All I got at your link was an empty PDF. Mind you, I should have my head read for bothering reading articles at your links.
Oh, Bordo.
You have never consulted an ArXiV article, have you?
Click on the link above, then on the link saying *PDF* at the top right of the page.
But wait – I cited the PDF!
Come on, Bordo.
Click on the damn link!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”The Moon doesnt have either a constant velocity, nor a constant radial velocity.
Both change as the Moon revolves around the Earth in an elliptical path”.
***
What force can change the lunar velocity? The Earth’s gravitational force at that altitude is a small fraction of the 9.8 m/s^2 near the surface and it can barely pull the Moon off it’s linear trajectory by 5 metres every 8000 metres of tangential motion. The component of gravitational force in the tangential direction is certainly not enough to accelerate or decelerate a mass the size of the Moon.
—
“Acceleration is any change in velocity, which is a vector with a direction and magnitude. If you change the direction of an object that is moving, you have a change in the velocity, therefore an acceleration”.
***
Who said changing the direction changes the velocity? If I am jogging on a track at 1 metre/second and I hit the curve on the track, forcing me to change direction, why can I not maintain 1 m/s? If you represent my motion using a vector, it’s direction will change over 360 degrees per lap, but I can still maintain a speed of 1 m/s.
You need to differentiate between math and the actuality of motion. A mass moving in a circular orbit at a fixed velocity does not change acceleration despite the vector representing it rotating through 360 degrees.
—
At your link they claim that V = 2pi.r/t. Since 2 pi.r is the circumference they are claiming the velocity is the circumference divided by the time taken to travel around it.
Point to note, that is average velocity, better known as speed and has no vector. It has nothing to do with acceleration which is an instantaneous change in velocity. Therefore their claim that a = 2pi.v/t is simply wrong. You cannot derive acceleration from average velocity since Vav is a constant.
Acceleration is a derivative of velocity and if velocity is a constant the derivative is zero. That means, as it should, that the rate of change of a constant velocity is zero.
To find the acceleration, you’d need to brake the distance into intervals over which the velocity is changing, and integrate those intervals over the pertinent distances. That would not give you a constant acceleration.
Gordon,
“Who said changing the direction changes the velocity?”
Anyone who has passed an introductory physics class.
Gordon proves once again that he doesn’t understand the basic science. A small list of his lack of understanding — Heat, Energy, Photons, Flux, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, and now Vectors!
It’s no wonder he can’t convince anyone he’s an engineer.
Whiney Clint cannot rebut my clear explanation of why a vector change in direction of a velocity vector is not acceleration. Had he studied vector calculus as I did, he might have some insight, but he’d rather trohl than think.
Recently whiney Clint claimed a force vector could be summed with a velocity vector, revealing his abject ignorance of vectors. I did not take him to task, rather I gently nudged him in the right direction. He shows his gratitude by continuing to stab me in the back.
Et tu, Brute.
Whiney Clint still does not understand that Clausius defined entropy as a summation of heat quantities. He would rather accept an illegitimate re-definition of entropy by the ijit Boltzmann, who committed suicide because he could not prove entropy using statistical means. Even Gibbs used the Clausius definition of entropy in his free energy equation. Only the ignoramus defines entropy as a measure of disorder, even though the equation developed by Clausius only mentions heat and temperature.
Whiney Clint, having no expertise in electronics or electrical theory, still insists that electrical current flows from positive to negative. He fails to grasp that the current carrier in both fields are electrons and they can only flow negative to positive. There is no positive particle that can transfer elecrtical energy from positive to negative.
Whiney Clint also believes that heat is not really heat. He acknowledges a certain thermal energy as being equivalent to internal energy but once that energy leaves a body and moves to another body, it suddenly because a mysterious ‘energy’ with no thermal component.
Magic, isn’t it? Thermal energy leaves a body and is transported by ‘heat’. The Dilberts who believe this cannot explain what that heat is but the rest of us know that thermal energy leaving a body must still be thermal energy. Therefore if heat is transporting thermal energy, it is essentially transporting heat.
I have advise Klinton Klown not to mess with me, but being the masochist he is, he insists on getting his butt kicked.
Gordon,
“To find the acceleration, youd need to brake the distance into intervals over which the velocity is changing, and integrate those intervals over the pertinent distances. That would not give you a constant acceleration.”
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity, both are vectors and both have a direction component.
How can you expect people to believe you studied engineering when you make such basic mistakes.
bob…”How can you expect people to believe you studied engineering when you make such basic mistakes”.
***
It’s plain that you have never studied calculus, never mind vector calculus. Having studied both, I have become aware that one can never blindly apply equations to motion.
In engineering, which is applied science, we were taught methods to alternatively check a problem to clarify it visually. We learned the freebody diagram, which eliminates forces on a body and replaces them with vectors. From that, I learned to look at the actual motion of a body to determine if an equation applied.
You commented that acceleration is a derivative of velocity but I don’t think you understand the meaning of that. That is the danger with kinematics, when the source of the velocity and acceleration, the force, is ignored. You cannot arbitrarily mix force vectors with acceleration and velocity vectors.
With a force vector, you can break it into component parts in the x, y, and z directions and each one can be regarded as a force in it’s own rights. However, if you take a velocity vector or acceleration vector resulting from that force, you have to be careful about breaking such vectors into component parts. In othr words, when you do that, you are presuming an acceleration vector is an independent entity and it is not.
That’s the mistake Einstein made with his relativity theory. He regarded motion based on acceleration while ignoring the forces that cause the acceleration. That’s how he got himself twisted into thinking that time, a human made parameter that has no physical meaning, could change duration.
Same with the Moon. You cannot apply an acceleration vector on the Moon pointed at Earth’s centre and apply it to lunar motion.
bob…actually, I take that back. Acceleration is a derivation of distance wrt to time, not velocity. Both are a derivation of distance, as change in distance. It’s the distance covered per unit time that is changing.
Try again Gordon,
The velocity vector is the derivative of the position vector with respect to time.
The acceleration vector is the derivative of the position vector with respect to time.
So do you remember the equation for a falling object ignoring wind resistance?
d=1/2 a t^2
Take the first derivative with respect to time, which gives velocity
v= a * t
Take another derivative with respect to time, which gives acceleration
a = a
Funny how that worked out.
Check this out, Puffman –
“Gordon Robertso says”
His Bordo trying to “hid” his identity?
Willard, please stop tro8204;lling.
Oops!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for revealing your trick, Mike.
Is this your Christmas gift?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon proves once again that he doesn’t understand the basic science. A small list of his lack of understanding — Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, and now Vectors!
And like the other cultists, he believes endless rambling, insults, and false accusations make up for his ignorance and immaturity.
It’s no wonder he can’t convince anyone he’s an engineer.
bob…I can understand Clint the Klown being this obtuse, but come on!!!
If I am running an oval track and I have a vector representing my instantaneous velocity, does the scalar quantity of the vector change when I hit the curves? If I am jogging at 1 m/s and I maintain 1 m/s right around the curve, am I accelerating?
You need to understand that acceleration is about a real, physical change in velocity, not a mathematical change per se. If you use a vector to represent a change in direction, you can break the vector into it component parts, and they certainly will change mathematically on a curve. Those components, nor the vector, exist in reality, they are purely mathematical representations of a physical motion.
As in anything else in science, when you apply human-made representations of reality, you must ensure they apply to the actual physical motion. Think of a car accelerating from a stopped position, then trying to apply an equation that represents the true motion re acceleration. You can’t, all you can do is give a general estimation. When you try to apply v = a^2/r, try to visualize what it actually means physically.
If you learned otherwise in a first year physics course, I’d try to get my money back. Although universities are often regarded as seats of learning, they don’t indicate that learning pseudo-science is also learning. They teach all sorts of garbage at universities like black hole theory, Big Bang theory, evolution, etc. Their current garbage of the year theory is space-time theory.
The saving grace in university is a curriculum like engineering where most of the theories must be tested practically. Even at that, they still teach the anachronism in electrical engineering classes that current flows positive to negative. When confronted, they won’t hide the error, they simply claim it is tradition. Duh!!! Universities are teaching tradition in lieu of truth.
Well, I just presented another tradition to you, claiming that v = a^2/r represents an acceleration of a body with a constant tangential velocity. It should be plainly obvious that a body moving with a constant linear velocity cannot accelerate. That is hopefully why people attend university, to learn.
There is actually no relationship between the two vis-a-vis the Moon. Although there is a slight vertical movement of the Moon due to Earth’s gravity, it is hardly an acceleration. Earth’s gravitational field moves the Moon about 5 metres for every 8000 metres of tangential motion but that hardly falls under our definition of acceleration, which is a constant change of velocity.
There are gray areas in Newton II, f = ma = mg. Newton laid out one of them, which is not taught in physics classes. He stated “If a force can move a mass..”, but we are not taught that in university, we are taught that any force can move any mass. We are also not taught anything about time…what it is. There are people with Ph.D’s who are thoroughly confused about time and who refuse to consider the facts when confronted with them. Einstein’s theories of relativity are based on a misunderstanding of time and that was corroborated by Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock.
There is another gray area. There has to be situation where a force applied to a mass is limited to its ability to continue accelerating the mass. F = ma suggests that a force applied to a mass continually accelerates the body. That is simply not true, as anyone who has pushed a car is fully aware.
Not taught at university!!! We are simply handed equations like v = a^2.r and required to solve problems. I don’t know at what stage students begin thinking for themselves but there are Ph.D’s still peddling that generalized rubbish.
No…the Moon cannot accelerate vertically like that therefore that equation does not apply. It’s based on a lie that a change in direction of a vector is an acceleration.
Gordon,
“If you learned otherwise in a first year physics course, Id try to get my money back.”
No can do, I learned that in public school.
” Its based on a lie that a change in direction of a vector is an acceleration.”
You should specify that a change in direction of a velocity vector is an acceleration.
Not a lie, you should learn some physics, apparently you never took any physics classes.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Abandon the planet
https://youtu.be/srJBLo8GR5g
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/B6pkFkM/archive-9-image.png
We may see a double Blue Ocean Event (BOE) in 2024.
A BOE is often defined as the point when the sea ice extent falls to 1 million square kilometers or less.
Antarctic sea ice has a greater effect on the ice albedo feedback than Arctic sea ice since Antarctic sea ice forms closer to the equator than Arctic sea ice.
Sea ice extent as of December 12, 2023: https://imgur.com/mmHHkKv
A,
“double Blue Ocean Event (BOE) in 2024”?
More GHE cultist jargon, combined with peering into the future. There is no “feedback”, of the ice albedo variety, or any other.
The Earth continues to cool, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW.
No GHE, weather and climate (the statistics of historical weather observations) are unpredictable in any meaningful way ie. better than the predictions of a reasonably competent 12 year old.
Maybe you could have some fun creating more irrelevant acronyms for observations and measurements, and make more pointless predictions about them!
In the meantime, you might think about telling everyone what the GHE is supposed to do. Heat the planet? Cool it? Do nothing?
You have no clue, do you? Obviously a really, really, hard question.
Swenson,
He just cherry picked a certain date to support his alarmist claim. Antarctica’s sea ice extent has rebounded, returning to levels observed in the past 7 years. Similarly, the Arctic’s sea ice extent remains consistent. While future developments are uncertain, it appears that the cryosphere has acclimated to its current conditions.
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
Are you daft? Is that it?
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Thank you Swenson for keeping the monkey in check.
ark conveniently omits the major fact that sea ice minimum occur during the 1 month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year it is far too cold for ice to melt. The ice thickness at the North Pole is about 10 metres thick.
As P. T. Barnum claimed, and I am sure he had climate alarmists firmly in mind, “There is a sucker born every minute”.
“The Earth continues to cool, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW.”
Neglecting reality and the 120,000 TW of solar gain.
And the measured NET gain of ~ 500 TW, which accounts for the Earth continuing to WARM.
Oh well.
Nutty Nate,
You obviously don’t agree with Fourier who pointed out that during the night, all the heat of the day is lost. That, plus the remnant heat radiated from the interior (about 44 TW presently), has resulted in four and a half billion years of cooling.
You may have decided to reject reality, but it doesnt matter. Reality doesn’t care.
Carry on living in your fantasy.
If somebody reports on Dec 23 about daily data ‘as of Dec 12‘, then it will most likely not be quite kosher.
Let’s look at NOAA’s daily absolute data for the Arctic sea ice extent
http://tinyurl.com/Masie-day-north
and sort all 12 Dec since 2011 in ascending order, 2023 appears indeed at position 3:
2016 12 12 11.266 (Mkm^2)
2020 12 12 11.362
2023 12 12 11.668
But… if we now sort all Dec 22 in the same way, hum hum:
2016 12 22 11.831 (Mkm^2)
2017 12 22 12.075
2018 12 22 12.269
2012 12 22 12.274
2019 12 22 12.327
2015 12 22 12.381
2013 12 22 12.415
2020 12 22 12.468
2022 12 22 12.505
2011 12 22 12.633
2014 12 22 12.695
2021 12 22 12.700
2023 12 22 12.747
By magic, 2023 now appears in last position!
*
Both output are of course equally useless, as daily values are obviously subject to heavy variation.
Better would be for example a comparison based on the average extent since Jan 1:
2020: 10.09 (Mkm^2)
2016: 10.11
2019: 10.12
2018: 10.30
2012: 10.34
2017: 10.35
2023: 10.41
What terrible differences!
**
But with his BOE, the Ivanovich guy now really exceeds the limits of what is bearable.
Let us look at superposed years in anomaly form (wrt the 1981-2010 mean).
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
One might have been able to understand this BOE stuff if at least one chart had shown some indication that the sea ice was moving downward!
But I currently see strong growth at both poles instead, and therefore suggest that we postpone until more favorable BOE conditions prevail :–)
Earlier Bindidon wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote”Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Never intentionally wrote? The nonsense just erupted all by itself while he was hammering his keyboard – and he didn’t notice!
He hopes that somebody will believe him when he says “Like bobdroege, I just wanted to kid you because you 100% deserve it.”
Oh dear, Binny now says that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie. between the sun and a thermometer) does NOT make the thermometer hotter!
What is binny trying to say – more CO2 makes the surface colder? It does, actually, along with things like water vapour, which John Tyndall realised over 100 years ago.
It would be interesting to find out how Bindidon describes the effect of the GHE now that he has admitted the silliness of his previous assertion “increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”.
He could accept reality, I suppose, and write “ncreasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer COLDER”
Or he could just run round in circles, admitting nothing, and lashing out in all directions! What a strange confused sauerkraut he is!
Flynnson’s usual output, due to his pathological urge to say something irrelevant because he never has anything important to say.
In between: 457 posts on this thread, with nothing but pointless, increasingly aggressive stuff in them.
Simply discard!
Earlier Bindidon wrote
“I never intentionally wrote”Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Never intentionally wrote? The nonsense just erupted all by itself while he was hammering his keyboard and he didnt notice!
He hopes that somebody will believe him when he says “Like bobdroege, I just wanted to kid you because you 100% deserve it.”
Oh dear, Binny now says that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie. between the sun and a thermometer) does NOT make the thermometer hotter!
What is binny trying to say more CO2 makes the surface colder? It does, actually, along with things like water vapour, which John Tyndall realised over 100 years ago.
It would be interesting to find out how Bindidon describes the effect of the GHE now that he has admitted the silliness of his previous assertion “increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”.
He could accept reality, I suppose, and write “increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer COLDER”.
Or he could just run round in circles, admitting nothing, and lashing out in all directions! What a strange confused sauerkraut he is!
Flynnsons usual output, due to his pathological urge to say something irrelevant because he never has anything important to say.
In between: 461 posts on this thread, with nothing but pointless, increasingly aggressive stuff in them.
Simply discard!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Merry Christmas to all the miserable recalcitrants here.
May I suggest you leave your keyboards for just a few minutes and go outside to breathe some fresh air, do some exercise or maybe even say hello to a stranger.
Believe me, it will make you feel better.
studentb,
Yes, I agree. The GHE cultists who refuse to accept reality and the scientific method need to broaden their horizons.
Smell the roses. Wonder how the smell travels through the air. Why are there no naturally blue roses? Who won the Wars of the Roses? Who wrote “a rose-red city half as old as time”?
Or spend your time prophesying CO2 induced doom!
How about just remembering what Christmas is about, the man they brutally murdered 2000+ years ago for daring to preach decency.
If you believe a book compiled by others some 100s of years after the event.
It’s like a miracle that it’s so accurate, huh?
Hey Pupman, riddle me this –
Does the anger of God last forever, does He tempt people, and were humans created before or after the animals?
Matthew 7:6
My favorite Matt has NOTHING to do with these questions, Puffman.
Try Micah 7:18 and Jeremiah 17:4.
A modern interpretation of Matthew 7:6 is DFTT.
That would not cohere with Matt 2:1, Puffman.
Now, try to reconcile Genesis 22 and James 1:13.
Whiney Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Now, try to reconcile Genesis 22 and James 1:13.”
Why should he? As you as inconsequential as that other Willard, Quine?
Nobody values his opinion – why is yours any better?
Keep braying, little donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Puffman just said that Da Book was accurate.
If it says one thing and its opposite, what should it tell you about its accuracy?
Merry Festivus!
Whiney Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Now, try to reconcile Genesis 22 and James 1:13.”
Why should he? As you as inconsequential as that other Willard, Quine?
Nobody values his opinion why is yours any better?
Keep braying, little donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Playing dumb won’t make me work more.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interesting to note that, unlike Bindidon, blundering bobdroege still refuses to accept reality. He wrote –
“Swenson,
Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time.
Even at night.”
Well, the maximum temperature on the CO2-free Moon reaches 125 C, unlike the Earth with its CO2 including atmosphere, which gets nowhere near even 100 C. Bobby point blank refuses to accept reality – the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface.
Oh well, some GHE cultists keep believing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Even at night, when the temperature is dropping, apparently.
Now is bobby buffoon’s chance to agree with Bindidon that bobby didnt really mean to say “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”, because he would never say such nonsense!
Which GHE cultist to believe? Does the GHE make thermometers hotter or colder? Take your pick.
Swenson,
Well it’s complicated, to much for your brain apparently.
It depends on where the thermometer is actually.
“Bobby point blank refuses to accept reality the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns radiation from even reaching the surface.”
Actually you are combining the land ice albedo with the cloud albedo, you might want to refine your statement.
Blundering Bobby, you wrote-
“Actually you are combining the land ice albedo with the cloud albedo, you might want to refine your statement.”
Actually, I’m not.
As Wikipedia says – “Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2.[34] The Sun’s rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W/m2 at sea level on a clear day. ”
Professor John Tyndall arrived at about the same figure over 100 years ago. Not bad, eh?
But back to your other silliness.
Your description of the GHE was “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, followed up with “Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.
Then you say “Well its complicated, to much for your brain apparently. It depends on where the thermometer is actually.”
So it’s simple, but complicated, you changed your mind about what thermometer you were talking about, and then burbled on about albedos of varying types.
You should really try to figure out what you are trying to say – CO2 hasn’t made thermometers hotter for four and a half billion years, or has it?
Come on Bobby, show us what you’re made of! Say something – anything – and I’ll do my best to have a good laugh at your expense!
Swenson,
Sorry but these two statements don’t agree, you do the math and find your mistake
“As Wikipedia says Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earths atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2.[34] The Suns rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W/m2 at sea level on a clear day.
and
“Bobby point blank refuses to accept reality the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns radiation from even reaching the surface.”
bobdroege,
You don’t have to be a complete dingleberry, unless you really want to.
The way it generally works is that if you don’t agree with someone, you say why, and back up your disagreement with facts.
Just telling someone to “do the math” is silly.
If you don’t believe that about 30% of the Sun’s radiation doesn’t even reach the surface, you need to support your disbelief.
Take into account the words “roughly”, “approximately”, and “about”. Don’t forget “normal” and “maximum”. You might also consider the effect of the differing atmospheric optical density between the equator and the poles, both normal and oblique.
Go on, “do the math” if you wish, show your workings, present them, and don’t be surprised if I can find fault with whatever number you derive!
You really are a simple soul, arent you?
Are you still saying “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”?
Or are you now saying “Well its complicated, to much for your brain apparently.
It depends on where the thermometer is actually.”?
Carry on, dingleberry.
“The way it generally works is that if you dont agree with someone, you say why, and back up your disagreement with facts.”
That’s the way I work when dealing with friendly people who want to be correct, but with people like you, I take a different tack.
Bobby point blank refuses to accept reality the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns radiation from even reaching the surface.
Yes that’s wrong, as some of it actually reaches the surface but is reflected by the ice caps and glaciers.
Bereft Bobby,
“Yes that’s wrong, as some of it actually reaches the surface but is reflected by the ice caps and glaciers.”
Go on, dingleberry. Man up, and provide some figures.
Don’t forget, you wrote before “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night”
Still no numbers – just vague and unsubstantiated assertions. Do you really think that increasing the opacity of the atmosphere, and decreasing the amount of radiation reaching the surface, makes thermometers hotter?
Come on dingleberry, makes some more bizarre claims. There are probably a few people out there who are more gullible and less intelligent than you – they might believe you!
Swenson,
It’s about the radiation from the surface not reaching space due to being absorbed by the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
You want numbers?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from less than 300 ppm to over 410 ppm, while the average temperature of the surface of the Earth has increase about 1 degree C.
I’ll expect more non sequiturs from you, because that is all you have.
Swenson,
Here are some actual figures that show you to be mistaken.
“About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone,”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php
Who is a dingleberry now?
bobdroege, please stop trolling
Why is Starship still getting damaged by a static fire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw8FVpNfh1M
An interesting round up.
Amazing that they can hold those devices on the ground while all motors are firing.
Tell the truth, GB, you are not planning to sneak onto one of those rockets before launch, are you? If so, give us a heads up before you leave. And don’t get you coffee too close to the liquid oxygen, I noticed a coating of ice over the pipes.
Well, they do put hundreds of tons of rocket fuel in them, to help hold it down. And with full stack, thousands of tons of rocket fuel.
And they tested all the hold down clamps to make sure they were strong enough.
With other rockets, like the Space Shuttle, they used explosive bolts for lift off. But Musk wants fast turn around, and he is not there, yet.
But many guess there will be about 6 starship launches next year.
That would be a crazy amount for new rocket and such a huge rocket.
And as far as all SpaceX launches in 2023, it looks like the number will be around 97 launches, Musk wanted 100 and 144 for 2024.
Other with smaller rockets, are approaching 40 launches per year.
A decade or so ago, I thought a dozen launches from private launch company, rocket, would be a lot.
One thing about a lot launches, is it pays for the launch site, and I had been very eager for there to be private launch sites.
Launch pads in the past have been very expensive, hundreds of millions of dollar just for launch tower and stuff.
For couple decades I have been thinking about how to have cheaper launch sites. And call it, a pipelauncher.
tim s…”I am on the side of science. CO2 is increasing due to fossil burning. It should add to the existing greenhouse effect, and increase the existing surface warming and upper atmosphere cooling effects”.
***
First of all, if your interest is in science, you need to examine what is meant by a greenhouse effect. It is presumed by alarmists that their definition of the GHE is accurate but it is based on an anachronism dating back to the 19th century when it was thought that heat could flow through air as heat rays.
The alarmist GHE is defined as follows. SW solar enters the glass on a greenhouse and heats interior elements including soils, infrastructure, and plants. They warm and emit infrared energy. It is believed that the emitted IR is blocked by the glass and that blockage causes the greenhouse to warm.
That notion dates back to the 19th century when it was believed that heat flowed through air as heat rays. In other words, there is a confusion between heat and infrared energy. There is no evidence to support the claim that blocked IR causes an increase in temperature, it is purely an idea that IR is heat and when it is blocked, that is the same as blocking heat.
The real reason a greenhouse warms is due to all air molecules being heated by the infrastructure, that air rising, and all the molecules being blocked by the glass. That explains the warming, a lack of convection.
The atmosphere version of the GHE is equally flawed. It is presumed that a trace gas in the atmosphere can absorb surface IR, which it can, and that somehow, the trace gas acts like glass in a greenhouse to raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That’s where the heat trapping nonsense comes from. It’s nonsense because of the presumption that IR leaving the surface is heat, and trapping it in a trace gas can warm the atmosphere.
Some have seen the nonsense in the theory and proposed alternate theories. One of them is that the trace gas, which gets colder with altitude, can back-radiate IR to the surface and warm it. This theory is so demented that the amount of alleged heat back-radiated, in w/m^2, is higher than the amount of heat produced by solar energy. Besides the fact that this theory contradicts the 2nd law, it also implies perpetual motion, in that heat can be recycled surface to air and back so as to add to the original heat radiated. Even if the theory had merit, it completely misses the losses in such a process.
Another theory is that the trace gas slows the dissipation of heat at the surface. However, the dissipation of heat is final at the surface as IR is emitted, therefore there is no heat dissipation to slow down by the time the IR reaches the GHGs.
Not satisfied with contradicting the 2nd law, the alarmists have created an alternate 2nd law which they claim is not contradicted. According to the alarmists, the 2nd law, which is about the direction of heat transfer, is actually about a net balance of infrared energy. Again, the 19th century anachronism appears in which heat is confused with IR. The 2nd law is not about IR per se, it is about the direction in which heat can flow by its own means. Like all other forms of energy, that is from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential.
Of course, that is lost on Klinton the Klown, who preaches that electrons flow in the opposite direction, from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.
Gordon, you continue to amaze me with your ability to twist things. I hope you are also amused, and not genuinely confused.
The so-called greenhouse gases actually transfer heat based on their spectrum and temperature. Heat is not “trapped”. By the kinetic theory of gases, heat is constantly exchanged between molecules as they collide. Radiant heat transfer does not require a collision — it is transferred through space in all directions.
Everyone who attended a college level physics program, paid attention in class, and most importantly passed the final exams, has a chance to understand what is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere.
Not only did I do all of the above, but I got good grades and graduated. Since then, I have had the opportunity to analyze and understand various systems in commercial use that utilize radiant heat transfer. If you have a fired water heater or furnace in your home, it relies on radiant heat transfer from the combustion gases — those very same molecules of CO2 and water vapor that are active in the atmosphere.
Merry Christmas!
I have a footnote for you and others who remain stubborn on this issue. Radiant heat transfer is never absolute. The emitting body does not transfer 100% of its emission unless the receiving body is at absolute zero. The NET heat transfer depends on the temperature of the receiving body. The receiving body is also emitting based on its temperature and spectrum, and that “back radiation” cancels some of the receiving radiation based on the T^4 relationship.
Tim S,
You sound like as though you would have no trouble at all describing the effect of the GHE.
Nobody seems prepared to say whether it heats the planet, allows the planet to cool, or has no effect at all.
What are your thoughts? If you cant or won’t say, feel free to scuttle away like a cockroach running from the light.
How hard can it be to say what you believe? For example, Bindidon stated “I never intentionally wrote’Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Is Bindidon right?
“Nobody seems prepared to say whether it heats the planet, allows the planet to cool, or has no effect at all.”
You don’t seem prepared to say whether you are talking about the core, the crust, the oceans, the lower atmosphere, or the upper atmosphere.
You don’t seem prepared to say whether you are talking about the past 4 billion years or the past 4 decades or the past 4 weeks or the past 4 hours.
You don’t seem prepared to say precisely what you mean by “heats”.
If you can’t pose a clear question, you can’t expect people to answer.
Tim,
You wrote –
“You dont seem prepared to say whether you are talking about the core, the crust, the oceans, the lower atmosphere, or the upper atmosphere.”
Yes I am, even though I wrote “the planet”, on the basis that a reasonably intelligent 12 year old could understand the question.
So, in respect of –
The core,
The crust,
The oceans,
The lower atmosphere,
The upper atmosphere –
are you prepared to say whether the GHE heats, allows to cool, or has no effect at all?
Of course not, because you are just trying to confuse the issue, aren’t you?
Go on, commit yourself to something – or join Tim S, in scuttling away like a cockroach. You can always whine about the time scale, or the definition of “heats” later on.
Or do you just want to play “silly semantic games”?
There is no GHE – you can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone how it is supposed to do it!
Carry on avoiding reality.
The GHE limits the efficiency of cooling of the surface. This in turn limits the cooling for the top layers of the ground and the bottom layers of the atmosphere.
This means that, since the sun keeps warming up the surface during day, the average temperature of the surface is higher than without the GHE.
The GHE causes no warming of the core or mantle.
The GHE causes cooling of the upper atmosphere (near the tropopause).
Tim,
You wrote –
.The GHE limits the efficiency of cooling of the surface. This in turn limits the cooling for the top layers of the ground and the bottom layers of the atmosphere.
This means that, since the sun keeps warming up the surface during day, the average temperature of the surface is higher than without the GHE.”
This sounds exceptionally vague, not to say silly, as it contradicts observable fact.
What do you mean by “limits the efficiency of cooling of the surface”? The surface cools at night, the rate determined by absolute temperature, emissivity, and the clarity of the atmosphere. Much faster in the absence of so-called “greenhouse gases”, it must be noted.
The average temperature of the planet’s surface has dropped since the surface was molten.
Just saying “the average temperature of the surface is higher than without the GHE.” Is meaningless. The surface has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature. Cooling is not heating. Some GHE cultists claim that the surface temperature is rising. Nothing you have said justifies such a position.
Do you believe that observations of thermometers reflecting higher temperatures over the past hundred years, say, are due to this GHE which you say “limits the efficiency of cooling”?
You are waffling, Tim, and dancing around the point. Saying something completely nonsensical like “The GHE causes cooling of the upper atmosphere (near the tropopause).” doesn’t help. The atmosphere (any of it) cools if it is losing energy faster than it absorbs it. Cooling nitrogen to the liquid form does not require any GHE (as far as I am aware).
Come on, Tim, admit that the GHE does not make thermometers hotter. Or claim that it does, and be prepared for many people to look askance at you, while gently tittering behind your back.
“Just saying the average temperature of the surface is higher than without the GHE. Is meaningless. ”
It’s a pretty simple sentence. What are you confided about? A planet otherwise identical to earth but with no GHGs in the would be cooler than our earth.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Its a pretty simple sentence. What are you confided about? A planet otherwise identical to earth but with no GHGs in the would be cooler than our earth.”
thats actually false. Its false because it refers to air temperature as the measure. But if anything the air temperature would be warmer without GHGs. It certainly would be measured as mean atmosphere temperature.
Indeed zero ghgs would make you feel cold. I lived in a cabin one winter in oregon. A house with zero insulation just empty cavity walls. Had a Franklin stove for heat. Had air temperature in the room of 80F next to the walls. But sitting in the room when it was below zero outside you felt like you are going to burn up from the heat from the stove on your front side and thought you might freeze on your backside. And that was with walls that completely block IR.
This was early in my years as a designer builder with a keen interest in energy saving technologies having been thrust into the business due to the Arab Oil Embargo putting huge pressures on those just getting buy paying their mortgages.
Those walls with air spaces in them allegedly providing multiple layers of IR loss protection simply didn’t add up to a hill of beans.
the outer wall covering was shiplap. Ship lap is a leaky wall covering material so if you install it today you have to provide an air seal behind it to consider an empty cavity as having insulation value.
the interior wall was much better to prevent 80f air from leaking out. But the interior wall also amounts to zero insulation like so does a single glazed window.
To get windows to provide insulation you have to have both multiple layers and a seal to stop the exchange of air from both the inside and the outside. For this reason and the fact that the GHE effect is saturated every where except where water and CO2 are very poor absorbers which is the highest frequencies of light. And light by way of its high frequency can warm anything like it warms the monatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the thermosphere.
This is why single glazed windows and leaky dual glazed windows simply aren’t considered to be any kind of insulation.
If this weren’t the case there would be little need of certifying insulation values and the public that is being deceived about false claims of how insulation works.
My position is no different than Dr Roger Revelle, the grandfather of global warming. . .but my actual experience with these kinds of systems results in my skepticism growing the more I learn rather than less. And Revelle was skeptical enough to say the science wasn’t there yet.
Science does continue to march forward and it is gradually pushing back the false narrative that has been foisted on us and neither you Tim, nor Nate, nor any of your kin can bring forward any genuine advance in science to say you are right.
Nate proved that with this thread where he claimed to have produced evidence of the scientific basis of the GHE CO2 theory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
that is only conditional with this reference of Nates on the basis of a falsification of the Isothermic Atmosphere Hypothesis:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
Based upon the longheld isothermic atmosphere hypothesis at the center of meteorology:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Isothermal_atmosphere
That states that when pressure and water presence is stabilized the atmosphere is isothermic.
The paper that doesn’t exist is the one that says CO2 can super stabilize the lapse rate as does the phase change of water when in fact all CO2 does at TOA is destabilize it.
” Its false because it refers to air temperature as the measure.”
Actually, I was pretty clear about referring to SURFACE temperature.
“… the fact that the GHE effect is saturated every where except where water and CO2 are very poor absorbers which is the highest frequencies of light.”
First, CO2 is a very poor absorber at almost all frequencies. There are a few exceptions (like near 15 um and 4.2 um). For “high frequencies” like visible and UV, it absorbs very poorly. H2O absorbs more IR frequencies, but it is also a poor absorber of visible and UV. We know that all the gases in the atmosphere are poor absorbers of visible light by the mere fact we can see clearly through the atmosphere.
Second, “saturation” id not the only factor involved. More CO2 means more of the radiation to space comes from the top of the troposphere, where temperatures are cold. More CO2 in this layer REDUCES the radiation to space.
Tim S
Thank you very much for these meaningful lines written by a person having real experience, which contrast a bit to what you wrote upthread about obsession:
” For those obsessed with the moon, I have a more important question… ”
*
I hope you agree with me that in fact, no one here is ‘obsessed with the moon’, but rather that some are obsessed with denŷing reality – what inevitably disturbs those who don’t.
*
” I have a footnote for you and others who remain stubborn on this issue. ”
Not quite surprisingly, the GHE denŷer gang and the lunar spin denŷer gang apparently are one and the same group.
*
Merry Xmas | Joyeux Noёl | Frohe Weihnachten
For the record, I am skeptical of the hype in the media and all claims about future effect. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
tim s…”Everyone who attended a college level physics program, paid attention in class, and most importantly passed the final exams, has a chance to understand what is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere”.
***
Then why do so many people here and elsewhere, who have such courses in physics, have so much trouble explaining it? I have yet to see a scientific explanation of how a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can warm it significantly. And I fail to see the slightest comparison between a real greenhouse and the alleged atmospheric GHE, the two having nothing in common.
If you have an explanation based on such a tiny concentration, please present it ‘scientifically’. You accused me of twisting things in my refutal of the GHE but you failed to explain what I was twisting. All I have done is laid out basic thermodynamics and physics arguments, as taught in most university courses.
My refutal is backed by the Ideal Gas Law and the equation governing the diffusion of heat into a gas by another gas. It is simply not possible for gas with a concentration of 0.04% to diffuse a significant amount of heat into a larger gas volume which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. In fact, the amount of heat that can be diffused is based on the mass percent of a gas in a mix and that amounts to about 0.06% for CO2.
Alarmists claim CO2 diffuses 9% to 25% of the heat in the atmosphere but they fail to provide a mechanism explaining it. It’s all done by climate modelers making inaccurate guesses an backed by agreement.
” I have yet to see a scientific explanation of how a trace gas making up 0.04%”
Yes you have. Many times. But you ignore them.
“My refutal is backed by the Ideal Gas Law and the equation governing the diffusion of heat into a gas by another gas.”
Gordon, many people, including me, have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning on this, MANY times. The main one being that you ignore the OPTICAL properties of the molecules, which are central to understanding the effect.
And to boot, we have given you many examples, where a trace amount causes a dramatic alteration in the ability of a material to abs.orb radiation, and thus reduce radiative heat transfer.
You will never ever understand the GHE, if you completely ignore the key properties, optics, that explain it.
Perhaps that’s your goal.
Nate continues to stray from science even after he demonstrated he didn’t understand the article he offered in support the climate effects of those optical properties, which have never been established to matter. Quite to the contrary is in fact a standard of science for generations that even today has not been demonstrated to be false.
Gordon’s comment on the ideal gas law underlies the isothermic atmosphere hypothesis that is still utilized to this day in meteorology. Despite vociferous claims of a affecting the hypothesis no unique to CO2 effect has ever been observed.
Thus the flaws in reasoning you accuse Gordon here of are in fact well identified flaws in your own reasoning. All Gordon is doing is following science that has been established for generations.
”Once obtained, these formulas can be applied to an irreversible process, such as the free expansion of an ideal gas. Such an expansion is also isothermal and may have the same initial and final states as in the reversible expansion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothermal_process
And of course the isothermic hypothesis merely adds a condition of hydrostatic equilibrium because the addition of water to the atmosphere is known to change the lapse rate.
So Nate here is lying that he can or has detailed the flaws regarding Gordon’s thoughts expressed in this subthread. He only wants to claim he has done it many times as a defense from having to supposedly do it again. We know that is patently false within Nate’s posts within this very comment section thread where he introduced a paper he thought that did that but indeed the conclusion that CO2 might be able to cause warming depended in part on establishing that the isothermic atmosphere hypothesis was false.
Nate,
You wrote –
“You will never ever understand the GHE, if you completely ignore the key properties, optics, that explain it.”
Is this the GHE which resulted in four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling? As Willard expressed the result of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Or are you talking about some other GHE? According to Ball 4, there is an earthen GHE, a planetary GHE, with one having a “temperature” of 255 K, one of 288 K, and another GHE with unspecified properties.
Which GHE are you talking about?
Both Bill and Swenson are confused about the topic, obfuscate about red herrings, and entirely miss the point.
” All Gordon is doing is following science that has been established for generations.”
My point was quite simple: Gordon fails to consider the optical properties of the molecules. And thus comes to the wrong conclusions about the GHE.
Period. End of story.
Well its understandable that he passed over the optical properties as it hasn’t been established what they do. We have the models using Modtran claiming that more CO2 will warm the surface and we have science saying its not yet proven.
“he passed over the optical properties as it hasnt been established what they do.”
You have heard all about the optical properties of the GHG and what they do. Why play dumb?
Anyone who is ignoring them is intentionally being ignorant.
“we have science saying its not yet proven.”
No we don’t.
-With increased CO2, there is less outgoing IR and an TOA energy imbalance. This has been experimentally tested.
-1LOT matters. With a NET gain of energy, the Earth must warm. You guys must think the extra energy vanishes?
-Since Manabe and Wetherald we have understood the mechanism for the atmosphere and the surface to warm.
-The ocean heat content has been rising, and is consistent with the top of the atmosphere measured energy imbalance variations.
Nate says:
”we have science saying its not yet proven.”
No we dont.
——————–
BS it seems like years I was bugging you to come up with a paper and you finally did in this comment section. And what did it say? It said it was uncertain that CO2 can warm the climate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”-With increased CO2, there is less outgoing IR and an TOA energy imbalance. This has been experimentally tested.”
”-1LOT matters. With a NET gain of energy, the Earth must warm. You guys must think the extra energy vanishes?”
——————–
The energy imbalance was simply calculated by James Hansen from his climate model as measurement of absorbed incoming could be off by 20w/m2. That means you can’t estimate an energy balance of less than that and therefore there is zero reason to believe 1LOT is an issue here.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”-Since Manabe and Wetherald we have understood the mechanism for the atmosphere and the surface to warm.”
———————
Manabe already acknowledged that he didn’t prove that. He just took it from the model output and laid out the higher emissions are the warmer it gets and modeled it in accordance with Modtran.
There is no way you claim that this is settled science. You produced the paper you claimed had convinced you. But you failed to read the conclusion and now if you claim there is science its obvious you are lying.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”-The ocean heat content has been rising, and is consistent with the top of the atmosphere measured energy imbalance variations.”
—————-
Yes the surface ocean heat has been rising. But that doesn’t prove that the ocean is getting warmer.
” And what did it say? It said it was uncertain that CO2 can warm the climate.”
BS.
Who said that? We have learned that when you shamelessly make up such nonsense.
No quote no credit!
“The energy imbalance was simply calculated by James Hansen from his climate model as measurement of absorbed incoming could be off by 20w/m2. ”
The recent results measuring energy imbalance have nothing to do with James Hansen who is retired, and there is no evidence it is off by 20 W/m^2.
Again you mix up various bits and pieces from various sources, and come to unsupported conclusions.
Very little of what you say can be trusted, Bill.
“Yes the surface ocean heat has been rising. But that doesnt prove that the ocean is getting warmer.”
False. The OHC is measured to 2000 m, well below the surface, which is the only part of the ocean whose temperature exhibits any SIGNIFICANT variation.
Do you have any evidence that all the warming observed in the top 2000 m is CANCELLED by significant cooling in the deep ocean, and if so by what mechanism?
Nate says:
BS.
Who said that? We have learned that when you shamelessly make up such nonsense.
No quote no credit!
—————————————–
You are in denial of your own source Nate.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
that you offered up here in support of what you thought to be proof of how CO2 causes the GHE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1575191
with you claiming this was evidence of the current GHE theory of warming occurring because of less emissions at altitude that was characterized in the conclusion as being in need of additional proof.
Obviously if CO2 can’t change the lapse rate it can’t warm the surface and that is supported by the paper above.
Nate says:
”The energy imbalance was simply calculated by James Hansen from his climate model as measurement of absorbed incoming could be off by 20w/m2. ”
The recent results measuring energy imbalance have nothing to do with James Hansen who is retired, and there is no evidence it is off by 20 W/m^2.
Again you mix up various bits and pieces from various sources, and come to unsupported conclusions.
Very little of what you say can be trusted, Bill.
——————
Just another bonehead strawman of Nate. I didn’t say the energy imbalance was off by 20w/m2! I said you cannot calculate an energy imbalance from measurements that can be off by 20w/m2, thus the uncertainty range for the imbalance may in fact be .9w/m2 + or – 20w/m2. . .which of course would be totally ridiculous to claim that the imbalance is measured in that case.
Nate says:
”Do you have any evidence that all the warming observed in the top 2000 m is CANCELLED by significant cooling in the deep ocean, and if so by what mechanism?”
Of course not! Its not measured!
By what mechanism? The mechanism that keeps the ocean a minimum of 15C colder than the temperatures the ocean bottom is completely surrounded by. What else would you imagine it to be?
The ocean bottom is in that room with the 20c walls that you expect to be warmer than the walls ala your GHE mechanism that you can’t describe in detail.
In this case its colder than the walls so there must be a mechanism to keep it that way. The most likely mechanism is super cold brines from low sea ice conditions causing much stronger annual refreezes that the massdensity of these brines pumps super cold water to the bottom of the ocean where it is super insulated by thousands of meters of water on one side and kilometers of rock insulating the ocean bottom from the molten interior of the earth.
The one thing you never see discussed by the CAGW nuts is this kind of reverse convective pumping, discussed in the post above, that comes from CO2 cooling the upper atmosphere. Convection greatly increases heat conducting from the surface and likewise it greatly increases heat being radiated from TOA. So what the climate models do wrong is they assume CO2 changes the lapse rate stalling any increase in convection that might be caused by a cold substance warming a hot substance.
And right there you have M&W in a nutshell.
And its promoted by the idea of a place in the atmosphere where it isn’t radiating radiating less when CO2 is added to it.
Really brilliant hypothesis you got there Nate, I have to hand it to you. I am really happy that you are in here elucidating that in plain sight for all the viewers.
-No quote no credit. Your claims of what a source is saying are never reliable.
-No James Hansen, oh well.
-No evidence to support 20 W/m^2 uncertainty
-Gobbledegook, and no data from the deep ocean.
Give up on expelling hot air, Bill.
hmmm, nate has completely surrendered the science debate and has gone full obfuscation as if it was i that must produce evidence of a hypothesis i have never professed.
obviously he must no longer wish to support the theories he believes to be true.
Nope, we have learned that when you try to ‘inform’ us what a source is saying, quite often, it turns out to be a complete misrepresentation.
Thus we have the Bill rule: No Quote, no Credit.
If you can’t provide a quote, in proper context, to support your claims, then we judge your claim to be PANTS ON FIRE.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/YOvKGbfMkpPcWTkO5u/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ou02he6r2xjxzfwcpdhj0scrztqr5s1d31on5ku9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Your claim is a complete strawman.
”Do you have any evidence that all the warming observed in the top 2000 m is CANCELLED by significant cooling in the deep ocean, and if so by what mechanism?”
1) I didn’t claim it was cancelled.
2) And yes the ocean does have a mechanism to keep the deep ocean cold. . .known to be true because it is cold.
3) A database does not exist showing if its warming as your theory says it must.
4) you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to prove its cooling or not warming sufficiently to support your claim of a .9w/m2 imbalance.
So I pointed out you have completely abandoned your effort to prove your own claim and are trying to discredit me for having failed to prove your case as bogus.
I am not doing that. I have no desire, nor no resources to dive down to the bottom of the ocean 150,000 times in random locations to check its temperature over the next few decades. But I suspect if non-independent institutions do it and find its not what they think it is they will figure out something like pressure sensors leaking with having even found one leaking pressure sensor in order to pull the article that found a number they didn’t like.
Its basic human nature to have that happen even when there are severe consequences for doing that. That’s why you need multiple verifications from independent sources and I see zero of any of that coming from you.
Yet no quote. So no credit.
Also no evidence at all that the ocean below 2 km depth is cooling significantly, and no mechanism for it to do so.
In fact the evidence runs opposite to that
https://research.noaa.gov/2020/10/14/research-the-deep-sea-is-slowly-warming/
nate will believe any, and i mean any, extrapolation his daddy feeds him.
see your tiny warming spot.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25934500-100-something-strange-is-happening-in-the-pacific-and-we-must-find-out-why/#:~:text=Melting%20glaciers,glaciers%20as%20global%20temperatures%20rise
Nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, Bill, the deep ocean.
That cold tongue is at the surface of the ocean, and is already included in the total OHC rise.
Where does the cold water come from Nate?
Your theory hypothesizes an even layer of CO2 warming the oceans.
The article says its coming from upwelling of deep water. It would be even worse for your theory if it was cooling at the surface.
“Where does the cold water come from Nate?”
No one is doubting that deep water is cold. The issue was how much its temperature is CHANGING, and in what direction.
The cold tongue is at the surface, produced by WIND, causing upwelling of colder water and then spreading it out across the equatorial Pacific.
As ever, this is off topic obfuscation by you.
What we do know is your source did not blame the warming in your article on surface warming Nate.
”more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean.”
so your source provides zero support to your conclusions which as is typical for you never supported by science but instead clearly is supported by your politics.
There have been spots identified all over the ocean as cooling as well as warming. . . as pointed out by my article.
Since cool water rising from the deep is essentially a convective process one can conclude that areas where cooling is occurring due to upwelling is being counterbalanced someplace else by even colder water going down to replace it.
And that is exactly what the thermohaline current theory proposes an ocean wide convective process where very cold and saline winter waters sink and cool also highly saline waters rise. Since salinity increases with depth and temperature decreases with depth we have that process ongoing despite the water by volume at the same temperature being on average lighter than water by volume at depth being on average heavier.
So when upwelling zones are present surface salinity also increases.
”Recent analysis of Argo data in relation to the historical record show an increase in salinity in evaporative mid-latitude regions and a freshening at high latitudes and tropical convergence zones. This pattern may imply an increase in the global hydrological cycle by several percent (Johnson et al, 2014, Durack et al, 2012, Helm et al, 2010, Hosoda et al, 2009, Johnson and Lyman, 2008).”
this is of course the exact opposite of what was suggested via predictions of glaciers overcoming New York City where they were projecting a stalling of the Gulf Stream that brings warm water northward along the US east coast as part of the thermohaline system instead worldwide it appears it may have increased by ”several percent”.
No one is doubting that deep water is cold. The issue was how much its temperature is CHANGING, and in what direction.
Your post doesnt address this. It is correctly pointing out that the coldest and most salinated water sinks. And there is upwelling elsewhere. But that doesnt tell us the trend in the deep ocean T.
What we know is that the surface land and water have warmed. It is logical that the near-surface contains the largest amount of T-change connected to T change at the surface.
At this site, you can see the changes in OHC for 0-700 m or 0-2000 m, and can see that the majority of the change is occurring in 0-700.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
Nate says:
No one is doubting that deep water is cold. The issue was how much its temperature is CHANGING, and in what direction.
Your post doesnt address this. It is correctly pointing out that the coldest and most salinated water sinks. And there is upwelling elsewhere. But that doesnt tell us the trend in the deep ocean T.
——————-
We are in agreement Nate. Since we don’t know what is really happening in the bottom of the ocean we don’t know if the ocean is getting warmer or cooler.
So it is correct to not guess.
Nah. There are some measurements of the deep ocean. And from those, we find no evidence that the deep ocean is cooling significantly.
While the extensive measurements of the upper 2 km of the ocean show an accelerating warming trend.
Is it just guessing? No.
It is guessing Nate.
One cannot conclude the deep ocean is warming when you have nothing other than a statement that ARGO has probed to 2000 meters.
In actuality the limit is the upper half of the ocean divided at 1500meters that is recognized by NCAR. Perhaps you have a actual reference to back up your typical NGO style activism of exaggerating everything you can. But I doubt it because I have never ever seen you do it.
“ypical NGO style activism”
You have no science answers, just ad-homs.
Weak.
FYI. Found this paper with good measurement of deep ocean heat content changes.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070413
“The global long-term temperature trend below 2000 m, representing the time period 19912010, is equivalent to a mean heat flux of 0.065 0.040 W m−2 applied over the Earth’s surface area.”
So this is warming, but much smaller than the amount observed in the upper 2000 m.
Happy Christmas to everyone!
Happy Christmas to Dr. Roy Spencer!!!
–
Christos
Καλά Χριστούγεννα!
A large drop in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
https://i.ibb.co/cbmcr0s/nino12.png
Deniers have no data, no models, no evidence. Only stinky opinions. Pray to St. Jude, climate change science denial is a lost cause.
Meanwhile on Earth 1, our reasons for joy are abundant …
On this day in 1868, the legendary mathematician, philosopher and chess icon, Emanuel Lasker, was born.
One of the most dominant players in history, the second world chess champion held his title for a record 27 years. Lasker won the title by defeating Steinitz in 1894, and kept it until 1921, when he was in turn defeated by Capablanca.
My favorite signatory of the 100 authors against Einstein!
I’m glad you raised the issue. Who among us, at 20 years of age, did not criticize the theory of relativity?
> Who among us, at 20 years of age, did not criticize the theory of relativity?
More to the point, who among us did not become husband, dad, and grand dad on the same day?
“Laskers keen analytical brain had immediately and clearly recognized that the entire problem hinged on the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space. He clearly saw that, once such constancy was admitted, the relativization of time was unanswerable…”…A. Eistein.
***
One problem, Albert, time has no material existence. The fact that you failed to grasp that makes me wonder why you are idolized as a genius. Time is an invention of the human mind based on the regularity of Earth’s rotational period. In your treatise on relativity, you defined time as ‘the hands on a clock’.
Also, the fact that you’d base your theory on a theory of Lorentz, that time can dilate, makes me wonder at your ability to perceive reality. Why did you not question that ridiculous idea before immersing yourself in theories based on thought experiments?
Another problem is that those requiring an appeal to authority, like Ark, have so bought into your lame theory they have lost all contact with objectivity. Those are the same people who currently push an equally lame theory about catastrophic global warming/climate change.
wee willy…I was reading through some of the explanations of why they disagree and the reasoning is sound.
Here’s one…”In order to keep the speed of light constant for any moving system, the dimensions of space and time are converted for the state of movement. Spatial dimensions are shortened in the direction of movement, clocks are slowing down”.
In other words, Einstein has it backwards, he is not observing reality, he is creating a hypothetical reality by hypothesizing a new system based on thought experiments. Since his theory is based on a theoretical constant speed of light, he had to re-define time to fit his thought experiment, therefore measured lengths need to become shorter and clocks need to slow down.
That’s not physics based on observation, it is a philosophy and it’s wrong.
Earlier, you posted a link to a PDF file from an Italian mathematician, who presents a similar argument that compared the ancient Greek theory that the Earth and other planets orbited in epicycles, in which planets looped during their orbits to modern math using Fourier transforms. He thinks rectilinear motion is an outlier in his wacky world of circles. In other words, he thinks motion in a straight line is just a special case of circular motion.
Of course, that author’s theory is even wackier than Einstein’s since it relegates Newton to a mathematical oddity. Unlike the author’s heroes like Copernicus and Kepler, Newton actually explained the theory of gravitation and supplied the math to prove it. The author seems to think Newton’s theory of gravitation is simply more mathematical philosophy.
The basics of Newtonian and Einsteinian relativity are the same at terrestrial speeds but the Italian math geek’s theories contradict everything in physical reality, replacing it with mathematical hypotheses.
Bordo,
Since it is Christmas –
The theory of relativity explains among other things the precession of Mercury, which was an anomaly for Newtonian mechanics. The precession of Mercury is observable. So your idea that relativity is a philosophy not based on observation is misguided.
The idea that epicycles approximate Fourier transforms is not a theory. It is a theorem. The idea that Greek mathematicians stumbled upon Fourier transforms is quite natural. Fourier transforms are powerful:
https://www.dynamicmath.xyz/fourier-epicycles/
TYSON was simply stanning a great Chess player. One of the most dominant to ever live. His record might never be broken, for the simple reason that by the time they reach 27 years old, Grandmasters nowadays become veterans. The youngest ones are 12 years old.
The prodigy circus is a tough one.
Merry Festivus!
Gordon, since it is Christmas –
The theory of relativity helps explain, among other things, the precession of Mercury. This was an anomaly in Newtonian physics. So the whole idea to diss Einteinian physics as mere philosophy that does not rest on observation is misguided.
That epicycles approximate Fourier transforms is more than a theory. It’s basically a theorem. So the “Italian math geek” you rain upon is actually offering an explanation that rests on a theorem.
TYSON is simply stanning one of the greatest Chess players of history. His record may never be beaten again, at least by human beings. Nowadays a grandmaster career starts before 15 and wanes at around 30. Lasker was the top alpha for longer than that.
Merry Festivus!
But Lasker beat a 58 year old who last successfully defended at 56. Lasker last successfully defended at 41, 11 years before he lost.
Steinitz lasted an entire prime lifetime longer.
Steinitz is only low rated because he took long breaks in the matches, understandable for a much older guy. But he went 32 years undefeated in match play.
Emanuel did not play the Najdorf, Gill, so why would you care?
I don’t care Willard. I just noted that you laid out a rationale for who was the greatest and it seems rather inconclusive. Perhaps you could expound on it.
Gill,
There are 21 Chess World champions. It does not take advanced analytics to get that they were all quite extraordinary. Yes, that includes Euwe.
Lasker kept his title for 27 years. Let that sink in.
Steinitz was indeed an exceptional player. Had you read the Manual, you would know that already. And of course Magnus is not too shabby either.
Who is our favorite player?
Bobby Fischer.
Willard says:
”Who is our favorite player?”
Beth Harmon
Bet I could kick Lasker’s butt playing soccer.
There are no deniers here only freaks who claim those who disagree with them are deniers. Rather than wave your arms in the air, try doing some actual science.
I suppose Emanuel’s tombstone could serve as a goalie.
Cranks who deny the greenhouse effect, the actual motion of the Moon, and other small details like AIDS or vaccines, are deniers alright.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Cranks who deny the greenhouse effect, . . .”.
Who could deny the Greenhouse Effect, when you state it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”?
In other words, having precisely no effect at all. All matter above absolute zero will cool if allowed to do so. The rate will depend on absolute temperature and emissivity, no GHE influence at all!
You have some peculiar ideas, Willard!
Mike Flynn,
Not only you deny the greenhouse effect, but you deny having received many descriptions of it. Not only that, but you even deny having described it yourself.
Keep braying!
Willard,
You wrote
“Cranks who deny the greenhouse effect, . . .”.
Who could deny the Greenhouse Effect, when you state it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”?
In other words, having precisely no effect at all. All matter above absolute zero will cool if allowed to do so. The rate will depend on absolute temperature and emissivity, no GHE influence at all!
You have some peculiar ideas, Willard!
Mike Flynn,
Existence is not a predicate.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ent, December 20.
> “You still havent explained why the slowest rotating planet in the Solar System, Venus, has the highest surface temperature.”
–
I saw your response only now.
Well, the slowest rotating planet in the Solar System, Venus, has the highest surface temperature.
Venus has its so much high surface temperature because of the very strong atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Venus’ surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A much more likely explanation of Venus’ extreme surface temperature is lava floes combined with much higher levels of solar UV.
And it’s upper atmosphere {where all heating is done from sunlight}
rotates every 4 to 5 earth days.
And this upper atmosphere of Venus has far more mass as compared to entire mass of Earth’s atmosphere.
And mass of Earth atmosphere slows cooling and heating at the ground/ocean surface of Earth.
Or with cool surface temperature of 30 C or less, prevents dry sand from getting higher than 60 C. Or if air temperature is about 40 C, sand can heat up to 70 C. And of course sand at 60 or 70 C continues to warm atmosphere until it cools below air temperature. And air above it doesn’t cool as much when land surface is same or a bit below the air temperature.
Or if talking about Earth land surface which is heated + plus air above it is heated, Venus upper atmosphere has has more thermal mass as compared to Earth- so takes a lot longer to cool at night- therefore the 4 to 5 times longer earth day of upper atmosphere has less effect.
Apparently not, Christos. The surface temperature of Venus is about 450C, far too warm to be caused by an alleged greenhouse effect. The 450C is likely due to internal processes and the super-hot surface is likely creating the caustic atmospheric. The atmosphere contains sulfur dioxide and another sulfur compound related to carbon. Sulfur is usually a product of volcanic activity and so is CO2.
Besides, a real greenhouse warms by trapping molecules of heated air with glass. There is no glass in our atmosphere or in the atmosphere of Venus, as far as we know.
Gordon,
“a real greenhouse warms by trapping molecules of heated air with glass.”
–
I think, if we have removed the air from a real greenhouse, it will warm inside anyway.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
One should put a Stevenson screen in one and find out.
Climate sheistrring update
https://youtu.be/aW945ig1lJ8
It’s the Sun stoopid
https://youtu.be/Z23-ZRgV7zg?t=1003
rlh…”If you believe a book compiled by others some 100s of years after the event”.
***
I don’t read the Bible and I am not religious in that sense of the word. However, there is proof that Jesus lived and that he was killed in a horribly brutal manner for speaking out against the status quo. Certainly, the Bible confuses the events of the times of Jesus and as you say, much of the modern Bible was compiled from reports ranging up to 100 years after the death of Jesus.
If we are going to question the story of Jesus as told in the Bible, then we need to question all history. Modern scholars like Elaine Pagels have done that and rather open-mindedly from what I have read. One of the problems has been in-fighting among Christian factions, each wanting to present their own account of the times of Jesus.
Even though it took up to 100 years after the times of Jesus to collect and present a historical account, much of it was based on first hand accounts. Of course, there were political influences involved, for example, Luke, associated with the Gospel of Luke, was involved in the Jewish-Roman war and apparently the writing in Luke is influenced by that association.
That’s not much different than modern history where events in WW II, for example, are still being discussed and revised.
During her research into the period, Elaine Pagels discussed gospels that were omitted from the Bible due to in-fighting. The contents of the modern Bible were determined in 325 BC by Roman Emperor Constantine. I find it ironic that a descendant of Romans who murdered Jesus would be involved in telling the story of his life while omitting accounts from a disciple like Thomas, who recorded conversations he had with Jesus. Not only that, the Roman and other Bishops determined who God is and what he thinks.
Mind you, Jesus spoke in parables. I don’t know if that was a precaution during the era to avoid persecution but some of the parables are pretty clear. One of them, according to Thomas, was the quote from Jesus, that what we need in life is already inside. How would Jesus know at the time what we are just finding out now?
I think Jesus had a unique quality, the likes of which has never been seen again. And that quality influenced humans so-much-so that it changed humanity forever. I don’t believe anything, I just sense that based on history before and after Jesus. His teachings were so influential that they converted the Romans to Christianity.
Why would certain Christians in those early days forfeit their lives rather than give up on Jesus? Seems to me what Jesus taught and preached was pretty radical to the status quo of the times, when sacrificing animals was still practiced in certain churches.
“there is proof that Jesus lived”
None that was written at the time he is supposed to have lived.
The four gospels were written within about 50 to 100 years of Jesus’ life.
The reason governments hate Christianity or Judaism is that they promote the idea of a higher power than the government. Governments don’t like that.
And India? (for example).
As I said, afterwards.
Historicity of Jesus is widely accepted by scholars.
“With at least 14 sources by believers and nonbelievers within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable people from 1st century Galilee.”
~Wiki
None that are conterminous. i.e. at the same time. There are other ‘gods’, etc. on other continents.
The first socialist zombie indeed existed:
https://art-sheep.com/forensic-experts-recreate-the-face-of-jesus-and-heres-what-they-think-he-looked-like/
But since he was neither a Caucasian nor a capitalist, troglodytes have to spin His story like mad men selling cigarettes.
Jesus wasn’t a socialist. He asked his followers to sell their possessions and give alms to the poor. He didn’t say give it to the government.
And if you don’t know the difference. . .well woe to you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Socialism: political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”
Act 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
At least these early Christians were socialists.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Act 4:32 ”Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.”
At least these early Christians were socialists.”
——————————
LMAO! Obviously a convent or monastery, or kibbutz, or commune where you live of one mind and voluntarily has about as much in common with socialism as democracy has with a dictatorship Tim.
In a free capitalist nation you have every right to join the commune of your choice. In a socialist state there is only one mandatory commune. Talk about turning the hands of time backwards!!
Gill is allowed to reinterpret the Synoptic Gospels as a Randian if he so pleases, for now the curent pope is not on Murican side.
And he is also allowed to misrepresent socialism too!
you are confused Willard. Jesus said: My Kingdom is NOT of this world.
Willard, writing “Gill is allowed to reinterpret the Synoptic Gospels as a Randian if he so pleases, for now the curent pope is not on Murican side.” makes you look like a slightly dim would-be philosopher, who can’t express himself above an adolescent level.
Maybe you should study the works of another pretend philosopher – Willard Quine, notable for his “negligible contributions” in the field of practical philosophy. You could start there, and try to reach higher.
It should be possible even for you – you will be starting at the bottom.
Give it a try. You might be able to philosophise your way to a better description of the GHE – your “not cooling, slower cooling” doesnt really make much sense, does it?
Mike Flynn,
To be is to be the value of a bounded variable.
The Humean predicament is the human predicament.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
global warming woes
https://youtu.be/JeZACZB_Ez0
If higher global CO2 levels cause a significant warming, China will have to emit a lot more CO2 than they are currently emitting.
But it seems it would be wiser, to abandon the land, and live in Ocean settlements.
The American statesman Thomas Jefferson said “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Some countries have interesting approaches. Nepal’s Penal Code Section 158, adopted on 2015, states that no person has the right to convert anyone person to another religion.
There are jail terms for breaches of the law.
GHE SkyDragon believers are able to believe as they wish, just not allowed to demand anybody follow their peculiar cult practices.
Other countries arent so pragmatic.
The problem should be evident in the street. Hamas supporters want you to live by Sharia law. If these views are heard (and they are being heard) then it does you injury; there is a reason Islamic countries are all shit-holes. Its incumbent on you to give a damn if you don’t want to let our Judeo Christian democratic nations become Islamic shit-holes too.
Ken,
You have the perfect right to tell me what I should give a damn about.
I have the perfect right to ignore what you say, and form my own opinions.
Don’t you agree?
I agree in the same way as I agree you have the right to walk out on thin ice.
I’m not sure that I don’t have a responsibility to yank you away.
Ken,
You wrote –
“I agree in the same way as I agree you have the right to walk out on thin ice.
Im not sure that I dont have a responsibility to yank you away.”
You are free to do as you wish, of course. I’m not sure that I would welcome your “yanking”. Do you believe you have been given god-like powers to “yank” people against their wishes, just because you want to?
It sounds like the same sort of patronising thought process that leads to such actions as “We had to destroy the town to save it”, during the Vietnam loss.
Feel free to determine who needs “yanking”. Don’t be surprised if one day, one of the “yankees” takes umbrage, and inflicts serious personal injuries. He has a perfect right to, don’t you think?
In the meantime, I’ll ignore such advice as I wish – and luckily theres not a damn thing you can do about it.
Beijing recorded its coldest December ever, and interestingly, the BBC reported on it. However, they couldn’t resist desperately injecting a mention of climate change into the narrative.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-67818872
Walter,
From the link –
“However, there is debate among scientists about what part climate change plays in this.”
I guess some might be pointing out that “climate” is the statistics of historical “weather” observations, and plays no “part” in anything at all!
Walter…the BBC were turned into a propaganda unit during WW II and have never recovered. They still shovel manure every chance they get. The BBC, along with their Canadian cousins, the CBC, are climate alarmists who shamelessly spread propaganda about global warming/climate change.
There was a good justification for spreading propaganda during WW II, particularly to keep up morale for Londoners in particular, who were targeted regularly with bombing raids, and later, the V1 and V2 rockets. They have no reason to lie like they do today, however.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Ottawa breaks record with warm December weather, and it surprises no one to see our cranks glean over it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/warmest-weather-on-record-december-1.7062457
Take the equally extremely cold weather in the Asian continent and call it equal. It’s all weather at the end of the day.
Dearest Walter,
If you want something, you can do it yourself. Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.
I can offer you this game instead – we take turns picking cold and a warm places. The first who cannot match the other loses. Since the world is warming, you should lose.
What do you say?
You can call it The Pigeon Game if you please, for it is borrowed from the pigeonhole principle.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Don’t be daft – you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are – you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Mike Flynn,
Again with the Chewbacca Defense?
Keep braying!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Mike Flynn,
I’m sure Walter appreciates your whiteknighting.
Still, I wasn’t talking to you.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Mike Flynn,
You repeat the same irrelevant stuff once again.
Keep braying!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft – you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Spamming does not help Sky Dragon cranks, Mike.
Keep spamming!
It looks like Willard didn’t like my comment.
Looks like Walter isn’t so keen on logic.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Looks like Mike Flynn is whiteknighting again.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result i; higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Mike Flynn,
You already tried to whiteknight Walter.
Why do you keep braying?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Don’t be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result in higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Mike Flynn,
This can go on for a while.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Unless you pay me, I am not your monkey.”
Dont be daft you are a donkey. Nobody needs to pay you to be as silly as you are you do it because you have no choice in the matter!
Weather is weather. You can pick your nose for all anyone cares. You imply the existence of a GHE, but by your own words, it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”! This is supposed to result in higher temperatures precisely how?
Bray away, little donkey, bray away! Pretending you can turn into a monkey if someone pays you is the not going to impress onlookers with your superior intelligence, is it?
Ho hum. Another mislabelled and pointless WillardWeather link.
Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, of course.
Mike Flynn brays again.
Tis the season!
Ho hum. Another mislabelled and pointless WillardWeather link.
Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, of course.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Ho hum. Another mislabelled and pointless WillardWeather link.
Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, of course.
You already said that, Mike.
Why?
Ho hum. Another mislabelled and pointless WillardWeather link.
Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
moved down here…posting issues…
richard (RLH)…where do you think the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John originated? The main controversy is not over the authenticity of what was written but by whom it was written. There is some controversy over what was written, but in general, the 4 gospels agree.
People educated in Greek wrote the gospels and as you pointed, within 100 years of the death of Jesus. Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John were educated in Greek. But why would someone with such an education created a fairy tail about the life of Jesus?
It appears that someone, or several people, told the story of their experience with Jesus to scholars who recorded it in Greek. Obviously, anecdotal evidence can be misleading but when you have 4 separate accounts of incidents involving Jesus, within 100 years of his times, do you not think there has to be at least some truth in them?
As I pointed out, there is a controversy over what was allowed to be in the Bible and what was omitted. In the Gospel of John, there is an obvious squabbling over the writing of Thomas, a disciple of Jesus. That squabbling carried over till 325 AD when the Bible’s content was ‘created’ by several bishops led by, and invited by, the Roman emperor Constantine, at Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas was omitted entirely even though smatterings of it can be found in the 4 gospels.
Many scholars now agree that the writing of Thomas is authentic and did precede the gospels, dating closer to the times of Jesus. That would mean the other 4 copied from Thomas rather than the other way around. We would never have known about Thomas had certain scholars not hidden the writing away with other religious writings in the Egyptian desert, only to be discovered recently.
If it interests you, read Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels. She is a religious scholar who has the ability to write objectively about those times.
> Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John were educated in Greek.
Are you sure about that?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
Mike Flynn,
I already know that one apostle was Greek.
What I do not not know is if Bordo knows.
So what are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, aren’t you? Sad.
Mike Flynn,
Are you Bordo?
Can you answer for Bordo?
Why are you braying here?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, aren’t you? Sad.
Mike Flynn,
Repeating yourself won’t do this time.
You’re not Bordo.
You can’t answer for Bordo.
You’re braying here for not good reason.
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, arent you? Sad.
In case you hadn’t realised, I comment as I wish, and there ain’t a thing you can do about it.
Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike,
Acting like an asshat will not change anything.
You are not Bordo.
You cannot answer for him.
You are braying here for not good reason.
rried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, aren’t you? Sad.
In case you hadnt realised, I comment as I wish, and there ain’t a thing you can do about it.
Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“rried”
Too much egg nog?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, aren’t you? Sad.
In case you hadnt realised, I comment as I wish, and there ain’t a thing you can do about it.
Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“hadnt”
Too much egg nog?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Are you sure about that?”
Why do you ask? Are you just trolling, or truly incapable of finding out for yourself?
You are just trying to be annoying, arent you? Sad.
In case you hadnt realised, I comment as I wish, and there aint a thing you can do about it.
Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“aint”
Too much egg nog?
Merriam-Webster –
“Although widely disapproved as nonstandard, and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain’t is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis.”
Unlike your skillz, modulz, Muricans – and all the rest of your juvenile linguistic perversions?
back on dec 9/23, Clint took another shot at me…
clint…Flux, W/m^2, is NOT energy! Flux is the rate of energy flow through an area. Saying flux is energy is like saying 40 mph is a distance”.
***
Clint continues to sit on a branch in a tree while he saws of the portion between him and the trunk.
40 mph describes a distance, the distance you will cover in an hour if you proceed at a certain rate of speed. You fail to grasp the import of an instantaneous rate of change. Velocity, a vector, describes an instantaneous rate of change whereas 40 mph, speed, is a scalar quantity describing a distance covered in an hour.
What is changing? A mass is changing position. It is the position of the mass we are measuring at a specific time and that makes no sense overall unless we are measuring a distance. Therefore you cannot express 40 mph without the context of distance. It makes no sense without it being a representation of distance.
Get it? ’40 miles’ per hour.
You need to distinguish between velocity, an instantaneous rate of change, and distance which is an integral of that instantaneous rate of change. I other words, if you integrate the instantaneous rate, which is an immeasurable distance, and sum (integrate) those distance over a time interval, you have a distance. However, the instantaneous velocity must remain constant over the time interval.
Speed, like 40 mph is another matter. Speed is a simple average found by dividing the distance covered by the time taken to cover the distance.
All in all, we are generally concerned with the distance covered.
gordo has lost his mind again, writing:
He fails to distinguish the difference between reference frames again, confusing “velocity” measured in an inertial reference frame and “speed” measured in a local reference frame, such as that of a car moving down a road. Both are instantaneous measures of change of position in their respective reference frames.
For a vehicle on the road, the “speed” is usually defined as that which is displayed on the speedometer, though one might also calculate the speed for the entire trip from starting point A to final point B as distance divided by time. The two values are unlikely to be the same. For the average person, the definition of the word “speed” is the instantaneous value, not that of the entire trip. When a police officer pulls you over for exceeding the speed limit, you can not claim innocence by mentioning the time spend waiting for the stop lights to change or traffic to clear so that you can roar down the freeway at 100 mph.
Anyone who resorts to reference frames to counter a physics argument is a philosopher passing himself off as a scientist.
I defined velocity and speed as they are normally presented in a physics course. Reference frames apply only on the occasion when relative motion is involved. It is understood in physics that when we talk about velocity or speed that we are dealing in the current inertial reference frame. Even though that reference frame may be hurling through space in a galaxy that is doing the same, it has no bearing on motion within the inertial frame.
Once again, speed is a word used to describe an average rate of change of distance that is dependent entirely on the distance covered and the time it took to do the journey. It is a simple division of distance covered by the time taken and does not account for variations in the rate of change of position of a mass.
Velocity is reserved for an instantaneous rate of change of a mass and is defined as the derivative of the function describing the velocity between two points along the path. The proviso is that the rate of change be constant between those points and have a specific direction.
No direction need be specified for speed nor does one need to specify the rate of change, which can vary. Speed is a simply average.
If you want to observe these rates of change in relative motion you are free to do so, however, no reference frame need be supplied as long as it is clear you are operating in the same reference frame.
With regard to the rest of your semantics argument related to speedometers and the law, we are talking about physics, a science in which a higher level of precision is required. What others call ‘speed’ is irrelevant, they do not have to account for variations in it over a journey. In physics, you must account for every variation and every change of direction unless the change of direction is regular or in the shape of a well-known function like a parabola or an ellipse.
For example, if a speed limit is posted as 50 km/h, that does not mean I must maintain that speed per hour. I can start and stop to my heart’s content as long as I don’t exceed that limit. Therefore, that usage of the word speed is apt, it is an average over a distance. If I want to specify a velocity, I must be far more precise.
You might argue in court that your speed did not exceed 50 km/h over the entire trip and that the cop’s radar detector was checking your velocity, not your speed.
Speed is your instantaneous rate of change, it’s what your speedometer is telling you.
It’s the scalar component of velocity.
Velocity includes the direction, being a vector quantity.
Yeah, The word “speed” to my mind is the instantaneous magnitude of the velocity vector wrt to some appropriate reference frame. Only Gordo thinks of the word “speed” as referring to the average over time.
bobdroege, Swanson, please stop trolling.
troubleshooting a failed post…
When you describe velocity as a vector quantity as metres/second, you are still describing a distance, 1 metre. We are not concerned with time other than the interval prescribed. We are interested only in the distance covered.
Flux, as defined originally by Newton is a rate of change, just like velocity. What is changing? Energy!!! It makes no sense to talk about flux unless it is energy.
Your confusion here is likely why you have so much trouble understanding heat and entropy. Heat is energy, not a human definition. It can’t be anything other than energy, which is defined loosely as the ability to do work.
The 1st law is about heat and work, but noobs like you will insist that heat does not exist, that it is merely the measure of ‘energy’ transfer. You also insist that internal energy is thermal energy but you fail to acknowledge the work done internally by vibrating atoms in a solid.
The first law is an an expression that equates external energy as heat and work with internal energy as heat and work.
Heat exists, and it is a form of energy. You could restate the 1st law as…external thermal energy + external mechanical energy = internal thermal energy + internal mechanical energy. In the entire works of Clausius I don’t think he referred to heat as thermal energy or work as mechanical energy. I presume he thought that too trivial to mention.
Why is that suddenly we have dweebs in the scientific community trying to redefine basic entities like heat and entropy, when they have already been well defined?
According to you, the first law states that the sum of heat and work equals internal energy, but heat is not energy.
But there is a statement of the second law that states not all heat can be converted to work in a cyclic process.
bob..I think that’s the 1st law is it not? Even though it contains references to heat and work, you can apply it where no work is done and vice-versa. For example, pressure on a solid mass can change the internal temperature whereas no external heat is involved.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582087
It’s the Lord Kelvin statement of the second law.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Dec 9/23 was a bad day for me, Clint and Tim F, along with Barry, ganged up on me…
[Tim F]”Gordon,
First, I agree with Clint here your uses of energy is quite incorrect here. You confuse energy (in Joules) with power (in watts = J/s)”.
***
Tim, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but the confusion is with you. Whether energy is being measured as a rate of consumption or as a quantity is irrelevant, it is still energy. Power is the rate of energy consumption per unit time.
I hope you are aware of this when paying your electricity bill. You are being charged by the amount of electrical energy you consume over a time period. We call it power but it is actually energy.
A battery contains potential energy and we rate it based on the time the chemical energy in the battery can be sustained when current is drawn from it (amp-hours). That is a static form of energy. When we draw it, we measure it based on the amount of current we draw per unit time, and we call that power.
The irony here is that power in an electrical circuit has no time factor, it is simply expressed as EI, or I^2.R. When we measure that ‘power’ over time, we call it energy consumption. Go figure.
In the end, it is all energy. A watt is a measure of energy and the number of watts used over a time period, the power, is also a measure of energy.
No matter how many times you say it, a Watt is NOT a unit of energy.
It is the rate at which energy is used or transferred. End of story.
And P=I^2.R is not “the power IN a circuit”. It is the rate at which energy is RELEASED by the circuit due to electrical resistance. Nothing “contains” or “has” power.
ant…of course the watt is a measure of energy. It’s a measure of the energy required to do work. Measuring the amount of work over a time makes no difference, energy is being measured.
Historically, the watt is related to horsepower. In fact, 1 HP = 746 watts. Are you trying to tell me that a 1 HP motor does not supply energy to a load or that the HP reference which is a measure of the amount of energy supplied per unit time is not valid?
The HP was originally designated as the amount of mechanical energy supplied by a horse in lifting a weight by 1 foot over one minute. Of course, that lifting was designated as work but work is mechanical energy.
The watt is a measure of mechanical energy and that forms the basis of my objection to electromagnetic energy being specified in watts. EM has no ability in its form as EM to do work or to heat anything.
You might as well specify EM in horsepower. Ho many pounds of EM can a horse lift in 1 minute?
Using your “logic”, velocity is the same as displacement.
Gordon,
Actually a horsepower is lifting 550 pounds 1 foot vertically in one second.
gordo, the self-proclaimed electrical engineer, doesn’t understand the basic equation of his own profession as he writes:
The term “I” in his equation is usually measured in “amps”, short for amperes, defined thusly:
Power is the time rate of use of energy within a system. Perhaps Gordo will finally admit that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Nah…
ES,
I am not disagreeing with you – but –
“Power Law: W = VI where V and I are as above, and W = power dissipated in Watts. From combining these, we can see that the loss W = (IR)I or I2R.” – Farrell UK, electronics suppliers.
I use the term in a similar fashion to Gordon, generally. The length of time is mostly irrelevant – a fast-blow fuse is designed to melt when its I2R power dissipation capacity exceeds design parameters. As quickly as possible.
“Climate scientists” assign terms in peculiar ways – “back radiation” is nothing more or less than radiation from the atmosphere occurring due to its temperature. “Forcings” have nothing to do with force. “Climate sensitivity” is completely nonsensical, as climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. And so on.
Maybe it’s a case of pot, kettle, black?
swannie…do you know the meaning of a coulomb? It measures the amount of charge contained in the electrons passing a point. The amp measures the number of coulombs of charge passing that point in a second and the time factor is irrelevant when measuring the number of watts produced in a load over a separate time.
I think you know that and you are playing the Devil’s advocate. It’s a good point though and it’s worth investigating. If the load is in series with the power supply in a simple circuit, with no inductive or capacitive elements, then the number of coulombs entering the load should equal the number leaving at any on time.
For a purely resistive load those charges should interact with the atoms in the load to produce heat. The amount of heat produced represents the number of watts of heat produced, even though heat is measured natively in calories. So where is the work coming from to produce this power over a time period? Obviously it is produced by the excitation of electrons in the atoms of the load.
Therefore the time factor related to the load power is related to the electrons in atoms of the load and not to the number of external electrons passing a point in a certain time. We want to know what time frame is involved related to work done by the vibrating atoms in the load which is different than the current running through the load and supplied by an external source.
Agreed???
No, Gordo, you still don’t get it. You wrote:
The IxV term is the power used to move the current of electrons thru a wire at a certain voltage, or the power carried via the wire between the source and the final consumption or the power consumed by the device at the end of the circuit. In a purely resistive load, the “heat” that results, which you continually fixate on, is a function of the time during which the power is supplied minus the thermal energy which leaves the load to the environment. IF the load is isolated from the environment, it’s temperature will continue to rise as long as the electric power is supplied. Those watts supplied over a number of hours time are the watt hours consumed by conversion to thermal energy.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
CO₂ at 0.04% is about 200 times more concentrated than chlorine in a swimming pool
Maybe you could describe the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, then?
No? Why is that, Willard?
No need, Mike Flynn –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You covered that one for us a long while ago.
Maybe you could describe the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, then?
No? Why is that, Willard?
Just posting the same irrelevant link won’t help, Willard. It just serves to make you look like a silly GHE cultist!
Mike Flynn,
The link leads to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188281
This was in 2015.
When will you stop playing dumb over a silly semantic argument?
Weird Wee Willy,
Not only can nobody at all see any reference to the GHE, but Mike Flynn wrote –
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly? I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?”
Is this your idea of the GHE? Slow cooling? Or, as you wrote previously “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Earth has cooled, whether you want to accept the fact or not.
If you claim that the GHE was responsible, fine. GHE = cooling, in your view. No danger of future problems due to excessive surface temperatures, then.
Why all the nonsensical trolling and “silly semantic games”?
Mike Flynn,
That’s a lot of braying to evade the fact that you already have a description of the greenhouse effect.
I award you no point, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Weird Wee Willy,
Not only can nobody at all see any reference to the GHE, but Mike Flynn wrote
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly? I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?”
Is this your idea of the GHE? Slow cooling? Or, as you wrote previously “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Earth has cooled, whether you want to accept the fact or not.
If you claim that the GHE was responsible, fine. GHE = cooling, in your view. No danger of future problems due to excessive surface temperatures, then.
Why all the nonsensical trolling and “silly semantic games”? Trying to wriggle out of your inability to accept reality?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Is this your idea of the GHE?”
No idea what’s “GHE” but it’s your idea.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Apples and oranges, wee willy. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is in no way related to chlorine in a pool.
Yet your primary argument against CO2’s effect is its concentration.
A,
So what is the effect of CO2 at any concentration?
Four and a half billion years of cooling, or something else?
[laughing at GHE cultist with nothing to say]
Your miserable excuse has nothing to do with an argument, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cold Humboldt Current.
https://i.ibb.co/NnXmMgH/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Mhb5jvH/archive-5-image.png
Which of course means warm air.
Is the opposite.
https://i.ibb.co/swsZtGd/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Please indicate where air temperature is shown on that map.
A,
Why? Are you incapable of finding the relevant air temperatures elsewhere?
On the right column there is a measure of pressure. Temperature and pressure usually go hand in hand.
That is the PARTIAL PRESSURE of water vapour, S4B.
Except when it doesn’t, of course.
State officials violated the First Amendment when they ordered retired engineer to stop talking about math in public.
ARLINGTON, Va. Chief Judge Richard Myers has issued an opinion holding that the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors violated the First Amendment when it ordered retired engineer Wayne Nutt to stop expressing opinions about engineering without a state license.
Nutt filed the lawsuit after the Board sent him a series of threatening letters ordering him to stop publicly offering opinions about engineering without a license, on pain of potential criminal punishment. The ruling confirms that those letters -and the law they were based on- violate the First Amendment.
Wayne’s case began after the Board discovered he was using his decades of experience as a working engineer to offer opinions about the designs of public works. That speech, according to the Board, was punishable as a misdemeanor unless Wayne (a retiree in his 70s) obtained a professional engineer’s license from the state. Wayne sued, sparking nationwide controversy-including a viral YouTube video that has been viewed over two million times. And, today, he was vindicated.
“At its core, this case concerns the extent to which a law-abiding citizen may use his technical expertise to offer a dissenting perspective against the government,” the opinion says. “Stating that dissent required the speaker to use his expertise in several ways. He had to do some math. He had to apply recognized methodologies. He even had to write a report memorializing his work. Some of that work may plausibly be considered conduct. But it ends up providing him the basis to speak his mind.”
“This is a win for more than just me,” said Wayne. “There are a lot of people in the same situation, people who have expertise that they’ve been blocked from talking about. This decision is an affirmation that the First Amendment protects all of our rights to share what we know.”
LINK;
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/federal-court-decides-in-favor-of-retired-engineer-told-by-state-to-not-talk-about-math-in-public/ar-AA1lOrSn
And, on a related note, Hyperloop One to Shut Down After Failing to Reinvent Transit.
We are reminded that:
The problems for Hyperloop One after building a working model in 2017 has been a failure to land a project to build one.
Meanwhile the hyperloop industry goes on. Hyperloop One is just one of many startups which includes Musk’s Boring Company that has a hyperloop test facility.
We know the near surface has undergone some warming. But what is the cause of it?
To even begin to understand my we have seen somewhere between .75 and 1.25 degrees warming over the past 175 years or so one has to start with how much sunlight does the earth system intercept.
So I just did a Google Search on this and from top to bottom the output was this (moved Newport down a couple notches because it didn’t specify one number.
NOAA: 1376w/m2
Wikipedia: 1361w/m2
UCAR: 1361w/m2
Australian Space Weather Forecasting: 1370w/m2
Vendantu/physics: 1370w/m2
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 1380w/m2
Quora: 1366w/m2
Britannica: 1366w/2
Science Direct: 13
University of Wyoming: 1373w/m2 varying over days to years by 1-5w/m2
Univeristy of California Irvine: 1370w/m2
Dutton Institute, Penn State: 1361w/m2
University of Nevada Las Vegas: 1361w/m2
Encyclopedia of Planetary Science at Springer.com 1368w/m2
University of Colorado Boulder: 1380w/m2
Newport.com – Seller of products for solar industry. The irradiance of the sun on the outer atmosphere when the sun and earth are spaced at 1 AU – the mean earth/sun distance of 149,597,890 km – is called the solar constant. Currently accepted values are about 1360 W m-2 (the NASA value given in ASTM E 490-73a is 1353 21 W m-2). The World Metrological Organization (WMO) promotes a value of 1367 W m-2. The solar constant is the total integrated irradiance over the entire spectrum (the area under the curve in Figure 1 plus the 3.7% at shorter and longer wavelengths.
This is a great example of Bill hitting the bullseye. Straight, clear, right on target!
Yes, the accuracy range of the so-called “solar constant” is probably something like +/- 10 W/m^2, And the accuracy range on the OLR is about as bad, if it could even be measured. So when they try to subtract Incoming from outgoing, the error range is even worse. Especially when radiative fluxes can’t be added/subtracted!
Yet the GHE cult pretends they know the “Imaginary Energy Imbalance” (IEI) to two decimal places!!!
All part of the bogus GHE nonsense.
Sure, & laughably, Clint R can imagine anything for such an “imaginary energy imbalance” and does.
In reality, in a given period, the real Earth system energy imbalance HAS been measured to two significant decimal places with 95% confidence nature’s actual imbalance lies in the given interval & all by calibrated, precision instrumentation.
All a measured part of the real GHE sense.
Sorry child4, but your invalid, unsupportable false beliefs ain’t science.
Of course, invalid, unsupportable false beliefs ain’t science Clint R!
Science, though, has the results over sufficiently long periods from calibrated, precision instrumentation meaning valid, supportable real system energy imbalance data exists. All commenters can do is laugh at the no valid, no reasoned data provided by Clint R. That’s why this so much laughable fun.
Ball4, you donkey,
You wrote –
“Science, though, has the results over sufficiently long periods from calibrated, precision instrumentation meaning valid, supportable real system energy imbalance data exists.”
The contents of your fantasy are not reality. You are aware that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, aren’t you?
Nope. That’s obviously wrong Swenson, you aren’t paying enough attention. Earth system has warmed recently. Refer to the top post actual system data from calibrated, precision instrumentation in the period.
Sorry child4, but your invalid, unsupportable false beliefs ain’t science.
Obviously you can’t understand Bill showed that your cult can’t even agree on what the solar constant is. You don’t know incoming. You don’t know outgoing. You’ve got NOTHING.
But, I bet you will continue making up crap and trying for the last word, just like an anonymous immature tr0ll.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Earth system has warmed recently. Refer to the top post actual system data from calibrated, precision instrumentation in the period.”
Ah, so nothing changed, but you believe that the Earth recently started warming after cooling for four and a half billion years!
Maybe your brain functions have been stolen by aliens wielding calibrated, precision instrumentation capable of penetrating your tinfoil hat, do you think?
Maybe you have overlooked the fact that thermometers respond to heat, and Dr Spencer is curious that at least some of the “warming” has nothing to do with any “greenhouse effect.”
You have mentioned in the past that there is an earthen GHE, a planetary GHE, with one having a temperature of 255 K, one of 288 K, and another GHE with unspecified properties. I suppose you are blaming one of these apparitions to explain why thermometers respond to heat, are you?
You really are a gullible cultist. Carry on.
Obviously, & laughably, Clint R 11:18 pm can’t understand Bill showed some data without specifying the different periods over which the data was observed for how much sunlight does the earth system intercept! Of course, it’s different, Clint, the intercepted sunlight data show non-constant amounts over time.
Fairly sure though, more astute commenters got a good laugh at Clint R swallowing Bill’s uninformed comment hook, line, and sinker. Keep up the seriously funny failures laughably hooked Clint, that’s why this is so much fun.
—–
Swenson 11:53 pm now writes in understanding GHE. That’s some progress. Clint should someday strive to achieve Swenson’s POV.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swenson 11:53 pm now writes in understanding GHE..”
Well, no, I don’t. There is no GHE – just donkeys like you claiming that a GHE exists.
Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not stopped the Earth from cooling.
Keep babbling. Reality is not paying you any attention.
I knew child4 would continue making up crap and trying for the last word, just like an anonymous immature tr0ll. He proved me right.
Wild Bill, the Hunter, hit the cult’s EEI nonsense right between the eyes by revealing the large range of guesses for the “solar constant”. Child4 can’t stand reality. So now he’s trying to claim his cult’s solar constant isn’t really a “constant”. Of course, that is what we’re saying. And it logically follows his cult’s EEI is also bogus, just like child4’s imaginary “real 255K surface”.
Now, he will hurl some more crap against the wall, proving me right again. I never get tired of being proven right….
Now Swenson 3:34 am argues with himself over the GHE! Fun to read.
——
That’s wrong Clint 8:13am, the data is not made up – you can see for yourself that the relevant data is plotted way up there in the top post. Fun to read Clint R make up imaginary & laughable EEI comments. Let’s see some more…don’t disappoint readers and stumble onto reality.
Now child4 confuses UAH global data with the solar constant!
Now, he will hurl some more crap against the wall, proving me right again. I never get tired of being proven right….
Clint 10:00 am, laughably I know you won’t understand but how much non-constant sunlight the earth system intercepts is a component of the real EEI which is known with 95% confidence in a long enough period now.
Actually, the top post data comes from the same source as the EEI data. Clint should not bother to understand since that would eliminate Clint’s laughable science failures.
Ball4 says:
Obviously, & laughably, Clint R 11:18 pm cant understand Bill showed some data without specifying the different periods over which the data was observed for how much sunlight does the earth system intercept! Of course, its different, Clint, the intercepted sunlight data show non-constant amounts over time.
———————-
LOL! And we are hearing this from a guy who thinks he knows how much warming a doubling of CO2 would cause because Svante Arrhenius figured it out in the 19th century.
Indeed Ball4 if what you say is true then we know most of the warming we have seen since the beginning of the industrial age is nothing but solar variation as we are talking about. The 1.4degC that warmist claim we are at now is only 7.5w/m2. the variances mentioned above cover full spectrum change of 20w/m2/4 = 5w/m2. So applying a sensitivity factor of 1.5 (half of IPCC estimate but close to observations) The change to the gHE is fully accounted for. Not bad Ball4 you are learning!!!
Fully accounted for by added atm. ppm CO2 as predicted in 1937. Solar and atm. humidity variation has not been measured monotonic enough, by around by 2013.
I am certainly not going to get in an argument with a bunch of characters that have no idea what significant digits entail.
Fact is there viewpoint doesn’t even align with how science figures it. From Trenberth et.al. 2009. ”The TOA energy
imbalance can probably be most accurately determined
from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85
0.15 W m 2 by Hansen et al. (2005)”
Which of course means the same thing as we don’t have a clue because the climate models haven’t been validated.
Bill 12:28am, the results over sufficiently long periods way after 2009 from calibrated, precision instrumentation means valid, supportable real system energy imbalance data now exists with 95% confidence. The data is not from climate models.
Do try to keep up with the latest 24/7/365 measured data & results so as not to appear so uninformed in comments.
95% confidence? Would you fly on an aircraft if the pilot announced “I am 95% confident we will get to our destination without crashing and dying”?
Do try not to look quite so gullible!
Would you continue to burn fossil fuels if scientists announced ‘there is a 95% chance that we will avoid catastrophe’?
Oh wait … that is not here and now … conservatives don’t care as long as they know they will already be dead.
“Conservatives”?
Ant, if only you had as much interest in science as you do in politics, you might learn something.
Yes Ball4 I realize that you are one of those sorts that thinks that if measurements are +or- 5 watts/m2 that means you can take hundreds of readings over the years and conclude that the reading error will average itself out.
But of course you are absolutely wrong because if that were true the manufacturer could make the adjustment before shipping the sensor. But instead the +or-5% number is the error that they couldn’t remove after thousands of in lab tests.
But no Ball4 thinks of himself as a God and he can remove it just by thinking about it.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Oh wait that is not here and now conservatives dont care as long as they know they will already be dead.”
the Estrogen effects from heavy marijuana use manifests itself in very strange ways in men. Sometimes they get man boobs, other times they become psychopathic nest guards, some just get shakey knees in fear of the boogie man. It really is unpredictable.
Bill, no, your uninformed error bars are wrong (& off by a factor of 10) about present day reports with instrumentation in a long enough period which nowadays is calibrated (thus more accurate) with a real EEI known to be in the satellite era 1.12 +/- 0.48 W/m^2 as of mid-2019.
Well a source with the testing protocol would be the appropriate response Ball4.
Nobody is going to believe you considering that while its not the case that you are ignorant; it’s just that you know so much that isn’t so.
Ball4,
Do you suffer from a notifiable mental condition, or have you been judged harmless enough to be allowed to wander the streets?[
Neither.
Unlike uniformed Bill 6:25pm, I have accomplished the pre-req.s, can find, read, & understand the more current reports.
Ball4,
If you suffered from a notifiable mental condition, you would deny it, wouldn’t you?
6:39pm: No.
Well, of course, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
The madman doesn’t even know he’s mad!
Ball4 says:
Unlike uniformed Bill 6:25pm, I have accomplished the pre-req.s, can find, read, & understand the more current reports.
————————-
you have no evidence of that.
Plenty of evidence hereabouts that Bill is uninformed.
Wow! Thats a variation of 19w/m2!!!
Albedo is even worse as it varies by up to 20w/m2. And inside the content of the Newport link it says the solar constant is 1353 w/m2 + or – 21watts/m2 – though I haven’t verified what NASA is actually specifying in the standard so I didn’t include that additional range of 29watts/m2 in the range above which would push it to 49w/m2.
Also I should note that Trenberth et. al. in their budget analysis had one source provide 1359w/m2 but I didn’t verify the origin of that number but just mention it as hearsay from Trenberth.
So the only conclusion one can draw is heck we have no idea why its warming as we can’t even pin the sun down to even suggest anything else is doing the warming.
bill…interesting research. I am open to constructive criticism on my view of the 13xx w/m^2 value at TOA but here’s my way of looking at it.
There are 746 watts in 1 HP. Double that figure to get 1492 watts and 2 HP. That’s close to your 13xx w/m^2 value. Don’t know if you have seen a 2 HP motor but I have worked around them quite a bit. They deliver a whopping torque and are capable of driving the belts they use at airports to carry baggage.
A 2 HP motor running off 120 volt draws 17 amps of current. In a resistive load, that’s enough to heat a room. The start up current can be 6x that value. That is, under the max load of starting from a stopped position can be 102 amps. That’s neither here nor there.
I am fully aware that 1400 w/m^2 divided over an entire meter is not the same, however, according to a 13xx w/m^2 at TOA, a square meter of space is dealing with the same total energy. In theory, if we could harness that power, we could run a 2 HP motor.
I am calling bs. Not calling you, just calling the entire concept of EM at TOA being 13xx w/m^2.
“I am calling bs. Not calling you, just calling the entire concept of EM at TOA being 13xx w/m^2.”
1360 W/m^2 is an easily measured quantity. Satellites do this all the time.
1360 W/m^2 is an easily calculated quantity. You just need the temperature, radius, and distance of the sun.
Inserting your own opinions to supersede measurements and calculations is the epitome of anti-science.
Folkerts, your cult’s 1360 W/m^2 is really more like 1360 +/- 25 W/m^2, depending on where Earth Is in its orbit, and satellite position and accuracy. That, plus the fact the OLR has an equally vague value, renders the bogus EEI completely bogus.
Sure, Clint’s laughably bogus EEI is bogus. The non-bogus real EEI though is completely supported by data over enough annual periods to enjoy sufficient confidence.
Your EEI is bogus, child4.
That’s why you must make up nonsense in a failed attempt to support it.
What will you try next?
Laughter. Except when Clint stumbles into science reality like at 3:29 pm below.
“1360 W/m^2 is really more like 1360 +/- 25 W/m^2, depending on where Earth Is in its orbit … ”
No. First, the Solar Constant is defined as the value 1 AU from the sun. As such, it does not depend on where the earth is in its orbit.
You are correct that satellite accuracy is important, and different instruments do give slightly different values for the solar constant. The older satellites seem to have been calibrated a little high, giving values around 1366. The newest, best instrument gives a value around 1361.
All of these measurements show periodic variations during the 11 year solar cycle, but typically on the order of 1 W/m^2.
So 1360 W/m^2 is really more like 1361.5 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 (due to instrumental uncertainty) +/- 0.5 W/m^2 (due to where the sun is in its 11 year cycle).
Folkerts are you are doing is Texas Sharpshooting blaming it on instrument inaccuracy. You can’t know which way that goes.
Astrology now that is a very likely factor.
“The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. …
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.”
I don’t see how that applies to anything I wrote.
”The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullethole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness.”
Bill, I am not just ‘drawing circles around’ the result I want. Instruments get better, so it is perfectly natural to choose the results from the better, more accurate instruments. (And I was following conclusions from experts in the field, not doing some post hoc choice based on on the results I want).
+/- 0.5 W/m^2 seem to be about the uncertainty in the calibration of the current instrument. Maybe a little more; maybe a little less.
+/- 0.5 W/m^2 seem to be about the natural variation during the solar cycle. Maybe a little more; maybe a little less.
But certainly not +/- 25 W/m^2 as Clint proposed.
No you are just drawing your target around select inaccuracies rather recognizing that the total error of combining all these sources of error mathematically which you deny without producing an updated estimate.
and it starts with equating inaccuracies of comparing sunlight to a blackbody curve.
We know that doesn’t work. Ultimately you can’t claim a GHE until you establish that a cold object can warm a warmer object and just because you either can’t or don’t want to recognize other potential means for an atmosphere to actually be warmer and warm the surface instead of vice versa. . .you will never ever be able to figure it out. . .because of thinking thats irretrievably stuck inside of a box.
“you cant claim a GHE until you establish that a cold object can warm a warmer object”
Are you ever going to learn that this is a thoroughly debunked strawman?
Just like your oven, the Earth’s surface has a heat source.
Your oven has a door that is cooler than the oven when the oven is being heated.
When the door is closed the oven gets hotter.
Do you need it to be established that the cold door warmed the warmer oven?
Well so far Nate the only well designed experiment I have seen is this:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
I am sure you must have something to add to the bibliography of experiments on gas environments so as to separate yourself from a drunk standing on a soap box in the park.
Not an experimental issue that this:
“you cant claim a GHE until you establish that a cold object can warm a warmer object”
is a strawman.
And you do not dispute it, so perhaps you get it now.
Oops it appears that Nate has nothing to add to the bibliography.
And you STILL do not dispute it, so perhaps you get it now.
To refocus your mind, answer my question:
When the oven door is closed the oven gets hotter.
Do you need it to be established that the cold door warmed the warmer oven?
tim f…”1360 W/m^2 is an easily measured quantity. Satellites do this all the time.
1360 W/m^2 is an easily calculated quantity. You just need the temperature, radius, and distance of the sun”.
***
When satellite telemetry measures the so-called solar flux at TOA what is it measuring? It is measuring electromagnetic energy which contains no heat. Therefore the telemetry must measure a range of EM frequencies produced by the Sun and somehow average them into an average temperature. But temperature is a measure of heat, not EM.
We have instruments that can be calibrated in labs to indicated the ‘colour’ temperature of a heated source based on frequencies given off by such a source but that is a proxy for real temperatures. The problem there is that no known instrument can measure the incredibly broad bandwidth of frequencies given off by a blackbody source like the Sun. The reason is simple, there is no known detector that can responds with an accurate output to such a broad band of frequencies.
Detectors are useful over a very limited range of frequencies. Like an electronic filter circuit, they respond mainly to one frequency then their output drops off rapidly, usually in a bell-shaped curve.
Another problem is the confusion generated by S-B. The temperature of the Sun has been guessed at using S-B, therefore calculations based on our inadequate instrumentation uses S-B as a guideline. We have no idea what the temperature of the Sun might be, either internally or at the surface. Therefore, we calibrate our instruments based on a theoretical temperature.
All they can do is average the frequencies received and guess at the source temperature. There is no way of knowing if the averaged temperature is accurate. For example, the Sun may be giving of frequencies in the more powerful UV band while lowering the amount given off in the less powerful IR band. The measured output would still average about the same but we’d be subjected to far more heat due to the greater effect of the UV frequencies.
It makes no sense that the Sun has internal temperatures of 1 million C and a surface temperature of only 5000C. It makes sense on Earth because there are no major heat sources between the core at 5000C and the surface. It make no sense that the solar core is 200 times hotter that the surface when the Sun is a boiling cauldron of plasma.
The irony is that no one has entered the Sun to measure temperatures yet arrogant scientists are willing to guess at the temperatures.
Your lack of knowledge of the science of temperature measurement is astounding. *You* are the arrogant one, imagining that 1,000’s and 1,000’s of scientists are clueless and you alone understand.
Gordon proves, once again, he doesn’t understand any of this: I am fully aware that 1400 w/m^2 divided over an entire meter is not the same, however, according to a 13xx w/m^2 at TOA, a square meter of space is dealing with the same total energy. In theory, if we could harness that power, we could run a 2 HP motor.
*He continues to confuse power with flux.
*He continues to ignore entropy.
But, he loves clogging the blog and attacking real Skeptics.
clint is relegating himself into the sub-amateur class but continues mouthing off as if an expert.
“*He [GR] continues to confuse power with flux.
***
Clint fails to grasp that flux is an imaginary entity, a mathematical definition of change. There is no physical phenomenon that can be identified as flux, it is strictly a mathematical expression defining the rate of change at which energy is changing. All we do know is that a flux field defines the rate of change of some energy field.
If we place a magnet under a sheet of paper and pour iron filling on top of the paper, the filings will arrange themselves into a shape representing the magnetic field. However, we have no idea what that field is, it is energy of an unseen nature. We humans (Newton) invented a word called flux to mathematically define how quickly the field is changing even though, with a permanent magnet, it is not changing at all.
Power and flux have nothing in common. Power is a reference to energy flow over a tim period whereas flux is a description of the rate of change of a field, like a magnetic field, through a surface.
—-
*He[GR] continues to ignore entropy”.
***
I have challenged Clint to define entropy based on disorder but he can’t. The reason is simple and obvious, entropy was defined by Clausius based on a summation of heat quantities. Entropy is about heat, not disorder. Case closed.
Once again we see Gordon cannot accept any constructive criticism. That means he can’t learn, so no need to waste any time trying to teach him.
But, I can add “IR thermometers” to the growing list of things he can’t understand — Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, Vectors, Watts, and now IR thermometers!
gordon, obviously you are measuring the solar constant based upon perception.
first of all most 2hp motors (certainly industrial motors made in the us require more wattage to run than the energy they put out at the shaft. in industrial machinery about the biggest motor you can get that will run on a 20amp 115v circuit is about 1.75 hp.
second the solar constant of 1380w/m2 is never realized at the earths surface. panels mechanicaaly tilted to be perpendicular to sun and track the sun have to be widely spaced to operate through the daytime and the peak input to the panel during the clearest day will fall well short of 1000w/m2 during full sunlight.
then there is panel efficiency of converting sunlight to energy which is typically only 15 to 20% efficient so you are down to about 150w/m2 to 200w/m2. solar cells can be 40% efficient but they must be assembled in to units covered with with glass or silicone covers. some of the finest expensive glass is only 85 to 90% transparent to light.
then there are a variety of other inefficiencies from wiring resistance in cabling and various other voltage conversion and rectifiers.
ultimately one cannot come anywhere even remotely near to being able to take advantage of that energy. one might expect to generate 40kwhours per out of a 10kw system in a sunny state
bottom line to run a 2hp motor 24/7 you would need pretty much a minimum of 55 square meters (600sqft) of top efficiency solar panels and the requisite amount of battery storage to see you through periods of low sunlight. and that would only be a bare minimum as panels become less efficient from dust, scale, and age. and the system would cost (without the motor) about $40,000.
The reflected solar from Earth is MEASURED by the CERES satellite, so no knowledge of albedo uncertainty is required, because it is being directly measured!
Oh well.
Yes Nate, your cult continues to believe in your cult’s beliefs.
It’s easy to mention CERES. But not one of you can provide any meaningful supporting info about your belief in CERES.
Oh well.
Well, there’s the top post CERES data meaningful supporting info. for one. Laughably Clint doesn’t bother read about & understand the actual science.
Child4 joins Nate in mentioning CERES without being able to provide any meaningful supporting info about their belief in CERES.
That ain’t science.
Clint R totally avoids the CERES meaningful supporting info. in the top post. Typical for Clint R & always laughable. That really isn’t science & Clint’s physics gaffes are very entertaining.
Silly child4, the UAH data above is about Earth. The solar constant is about Sun.
This is so far over your head it’s funny.
Way to go Clint! That’s actually progress toward Clint understanding the real EEI instead of Clint’s bogus EEI. Earthshine and sunshine as Clint writes are measured components of the real EEI now known with 95% confidence to 2 decimal places.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
Ball4, please stop trolling.
two things.
1) since reflection all occurs only on half the globe the claimed ceres error is more than 2watts of light reflected right off making it impossible to measure an imbalance below 2w/m2. or the imbalance could be positive or negative.
2) there is considerable discussion of using the Ramanathan-Inamdar model to estimate lw emissions and using emissivity tables to delineate between reflected lw and emitted lw suggesting the two watts accuracy is based upon some kind of uniform substance when testing the instruments before flight.
oh well.
“1) since reflection all occurs only on half the globe the claimed ceres error is more than 2watts of light reflected right off making it impossible to measure an imbalance below 2w/m2. or the imbalance could be positive or negative.”
BS. No science in that claim.
Nate seems to want to claim that the 100+watts reflected or the mean 352w/m2 insolation is equally reflected by the lit side and the dark side of earth.
And of course he will have enormous difficulties in finding a real scientist to back him up on that.
Nope. Just more of your nonsensical unsupported assertions.
The CERES data, such as reflected and abs.orbed solar, and outgoing IR, are reported as global or hemispheric averages measured over long periods such as months.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028196
You may find all that convincing of a paper claiming to be properly handling satellite drift adjustments or Berkeley Earth reprocessing data for another surface temperature record. . .or more to the point discrepancies between opinions on satellite drift as expressed here:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah6/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah6/trend
Unfortunately auditors are not allowed the luxury of just believe what somebody says and claims about the solutions they proposed regarding the difficulties of obtaining just one of the parameters in question. They need to go out and seek independent opinions if they don’t have the expertise in-house. Most often uncertainties cannot be resolved and that then requires a full disclosure in lieu of an adjustment to the figures.
And of course there is the not so small matter when it comes to the imbalance regarding what is happening on the bottom of the ocean where there isn’t even a dataset available.
So what you have here is numerous measurements all subject to acknowledged lacking of accuracy and you have entire realms where there isn’t even any data available.
RLH
Where would I find your latest graph which extrapolates the UAH trend into next year? It seems to have gone AWOL.
No
Huh??
Who are you and what are you trying to say?
He seems to be Walter R Hogle, and he appears to be saying “No”.
Have you figured out why the GHE is impossible to describe in any way that accords with reality?
Mike Flynn,
Walter cannot really speak for Richard.
Are you still trying to ask about what you yourself provided in 2015?
He seems to be Walter R Hogle, and he appears to be saying “No”.
Have you figured out why the GHE is impossible to describe in any way that accords with reality?
wee willy…”Mike Flynn”…
***
That will be Mr. Flynn to the likes of you.
Oh, Bordo.
At least you stopped denying he was Mike Flynn.
Sorry. I seem to have failed to update it.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/uah-mean-global-for-nov-2023/
Still needs some work.
The 12 month values only go to mid 2022 and the 5-year forecast is running 0.6C too low.
Entropic man
And, as always: the so-called ‘5 year S-G projection’ of course is no projection at all but is simply the end of a 5 year Savitzky-Golay smoothing (apparently, its begin was intentionally kept hidden to increase the ‘projection’ feeling).
*
A projection is the extension of existing data performed by a statistical tool, e.g. a polynomial fit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Aa2ekMLBCyLi2vS-QZ-BDbEGjIbx7ZLO/view
While the operational window of a 5 year (or 60 month) Savitzky-Golay smoothing is the same as its source, the data generated by linear or polynomial fits can extend beyond the source they process.
Another example (SSN, comparison of SC24 data to SC25’s projection):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1342IkA_XQJovorDZNjrAqTQAT7ellR/view
Such projections are of course snapshots and become invalidated as soon as new data is added to the sources they process.
S-G can be used as a projection just as any other filer can.
….filter can
Still the same, tedious blah blah hiding the fact that your alleged ‘projection’ isn’t a real one.
While projections are well understood as extensions beyond existing data
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/projection
you show nothing else than the output of an S-G filter processing real data and ending with it.
But I know: you are over 100% opinionated, and never admit being wrong, exactly like do Robertson and a few other specialists when they denŷ the lunar spin. It’s exactly the same behavior.
You can repeat your allegations as long as you want.
“your alleged projection isnt a real one”
The maths says otherwise.
“a calculation or guess about the future based on information that you have”
Calculation is another word for maths.
Using a VP 12 month filter shows what it shows (and it definitely is not 12 months).
Earlier Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Its a pretty simple sentence. What are you confided about? A planet otherwise identical to earth but with no GHGs in the would be cooler than our earth.”
Presumably, Tim meant to write “confused”, but no matter.
The Moon, with no GHGs reaches temperatures in excess of 125 C after the same exposure time. The Earth, of course, having an atmosphere (GHGs and all), cannot achieve anything like this temperature. A maximum surface temperature of about 60 C is about all.
Now is the time for Tim to twist and wriggle, perverting reality, and mutter about the miracle of climatological “averages”. No, Tim. As prof Jon Tyndall pointed out (and confirmed with experimental measurement) the main impact go GHGs on temperature is to depress surface temperatures.
He was probably a bit more accepting of reality than GHE cultists like you!
Tim excels at thought experiments that don’t make a lot of sense. He clearly misses the point that the colder temperature of the Moon with no atmosphere is a mathematical average over 28 days for the entire planet. One side is always baked at 120C while the other experiences temps around -130C. Claiming that the Moon with no atmosphere is cooler is a bit of a strawman.
The moon is not “otherwise identical”. So nothing you say is germane to the discussion at hand.
Tim,
I can’t see where your quoted “otherwise identical” appears. You seem to be quoting yourself, trying to deny the reality that the airless Moon has temperatures both higher and lower than the Earth, as it has no atmosphere to impede radiation either reaching the Moon, or leaving it.
An example of less GHGs resulting in higher temperatures on Earth, is the highest temperature recorded occurred in an arid desert – characterised by minimal water vapour – the most important ‘greenhouse gas’ according to some GHE believers.
Maybe you can weave that fact into your GHE description sometime.
You are not terribly accepting of fact, are you Tim?
The cargo cult is confused about Venus {and they probably want to live there}.
Venus absorbs very little sunlight and it isn’t a greenhouse effect.
Venus would absorb less sunlight if it was at Earth’s distance from the Sun. And it would be a lot colder.
Venus has a ocean of an atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere is heated. With warmer upper atmosphere, the lapse rate makes a warmer surface at lower atmosphere.
The cargo cult can live on Venus if they live in 1 atm atmospheric pressure. But rocky surface it’s 90 atm. Pressure similar 900 meters under the Earth’s ocean. You probably don’t want to live in 90 atm of pressure, regardless of it’s temperature.
“Now is the time for Tim to twist and wriggle, perverting reality, and mutter about the miracle of climatological averages. ”
No, now it the time to remind you that the GHE is not the only factor that impacts surface temperatures. The moon …
* has a different albedo.
* has no convection.
* has no evaporation/condensation.
* has no oceans transporting heat away from the tropics.
I could go on. The moon is VERY different from the earth. Maximum temperatures are not a good way to quantify the impacts of the GHE when all these other factors matter too. (Similar arguments apply when comparing deserts and rainforests; maximum temperatures in areas that are vastly different in other ways does not invalidate the GHE.)
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
” The Earth, of course, having an atmosphere (GHGs and all), cannot achieve anything like this temperature. ”
Flynnson’s pathological need for idîotic deception is, as always, simply astonishing.
Nobody knows why he only ever mentions the highest lunar temperature but never the lowest one: every 10-year-old child can see that.
*
For years we have had a satellite constantly orbiting the moon (LRO) on which the Diviner device is installed, which, among other things, measures the lunar temperature day after day.
Measurements for the equatorial average temperature
– Moon: ~206K
– Earth: ~299K
Measurements for the polar average temperature
– Moon: ~98K
– Earth: ~256K (North Pole) ~230K (South Pole)
*
Flynnson loves to divert, insinuate, distort, misrepresent, manipulate.
The best is to ignore his trash, and to look at the reality he constantly ignores, e.g.:
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
binny…could you make a New Years resolution to try not being such an ijit?
Binny is a a monkey.
Binny,
Ah, the “average”. The refuge of scoundrels and GHE cultists!
From your link – Moon max – 410K, Earth max – 331 K
Moon min – 25 K, Earth min – 184 K.
Your “averages” are completely irrelevant. One might as well “average” the Earth’s max and min, to come up with 258 K!
You don’t seem to realise that the Earth’s red-hot mantle is only about 5 km below the surface in some places, even appearing on the surface from time to time. Not at all like the much colder Moon.
You are just being silly, and denying the reality that the hottest places on Earth have the lowest GHGs – as do the coldest places on Earth! Just physics, Binny.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“about 5 km below the surface”
Are you suggesting this is an average?
Is the mean, median or mode your ‘average’? All are true. Which is yours?
Ask Mike, Richard.
No idea where he got his average.
So you don’t have a preference then.
It does not matter much of the times, no.
And when it matters we can show them all.
Statistics says otherwise. Each has its meaning and use.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You dont seem to realise that the Earths red-hot mantle is only about 5 km below the surface in some places.
Mike Flynn,
You do not seem to realize that to be is to do.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
All you achieve with this unspeakably stûpid answer is to make a f00l of yourself.
You are only able to divert, insinuate, distort, misrepresent, manipulate.
Visitez un psy, Flynnson, cela nous fera du bien.
Earthlings measure their temperature in a white box in the shade.
On the moon their measuring instruments would get cold.
The Moon and most of the universe has no temperature that is measured on Earth- well, no temperature that many Earthling know how to find.
If they bury their white boxes under the lunar ground, the temperature is quite cold as compared to white boxes five feet above the ground which measuring surface air temperature on Earth.
If Earthlings were living under the lunar ground and their air temperature was 15 C, they would be cold. What considered room temperature is 20 to 30 C- though that’s when they are not sleeping. If under enough blankets in bed, a room temperature of 15 C is ok.
On Earth most of living space in water, but humans live on 30% of the land surface. A common story is humans once lived in trees on the land surface, which is even smaller living space. But then they began to walk, and became creature which could walk long distances. And much later, they sailed the oceans.
Recently, they learned how to fly, and very quickly after this, some humans went to the Moon.
Everyone is now very interested in returning to the Moon and finding out, stuff about the Moon.
And in Jan 2024, Japan is trying to be the fifth nation to land a craft on the lunar surface:
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japan_moon_lander_enters_lunar_orbit_999.html
Bindidon,
>”Measurements for the equatorial average temperature
Moon: ~206K
Earth: ~299K”
From your source:
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
Moon
Equator Average Temperature (K) ~206K (390K at noon; ~95 K at midnight)
–
It cannot be, because it is not possible to happen
(Moon
Equator Average Temperature (K) ~206K)
–
A planet or moon the Equator Average Temperature is always higher than their respective planet or moon the Average Surface Temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
You must be absolutely brazen to claim that Moon temperature measurements performed by the Diviner device would not be correct.
Such nonsense doesn’t wonder me from a guy who recently started to suddenly denŷ the lunar spin – for obvious reasons, as it seems.
Binny,
The measurements are no doubt correct.
The “averages” are just measurement manipulations. Completely pointless manipulations?
Mike Flynn,
Which measurement?
Are you referring to a specific measurement or to a typical one?
How would you determine if a measurement is typical?
Carry on braying!
Willard, please stop tro‌lling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
As soon as you are not referring to a specific measurement at some point in time you are referring to something like an average.
Keep on braying.
Wondering Wee Willy,
And anyone should value your opinion because . . . ?
Flynnson
All you achieve with this further unspeakably stpid answer is to make a f00l of yourself.
You are only able to divert, insinuate, distort, misrepresent, manipulate.
Visitez un psy, Flynnson, cela nous fera du bien.
Binny,
You believe that someone, somewhere, will value your opinion because . . . ?
Not me, that’s for sure!
Another strange lad, is Bindidon.
Mike Flynn,
Sometimes I value Binny’s opinion.
Cheers.
Willard,
I’m sure Binny is gratified.
When don’t you value his opinion?
When it does not FAIL, Mike:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
FAIL better.
christos…Binny does not read and comprehend well, he sees only what he wants to see.
The article claims the mean equatorial temperature is about 400K (260.6F or 127C) while the low is below 100K (-279.4 or -173C) on the Moon. They also claim that shaded spots get as low as 25K (-414.4F or -248C).
A range from 25k to 400K makes it very difficult to get a real average other than a mathematical average. I don’t think anyone has ever measured 0K, it seems to be a calculated temperature.
Same on Earth where temperatures can easily range from +50C to -80C.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
William Thompson, also known as Lord Kelvin, formulated the Kelvin statement, which states “It is impossible to convert heat completely in a cyclic process.” This means that there is no way for one to convert all the energy of a system into work, without losing energy.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/The_Four_Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
Still amazing how Sky Dragon cranks still ignore stuff so basic.
Witless Wee Willy,
Skydragon cranks, GHE cultists, call them what you will, are those poor gullible fools who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Hence the “SkyDragon” name, fearful of the CO2 fuelled heat from the atmosphere, which will supposedly fry, boil, roast and toast us – in the words of one famous SkyDragon cultist.
Luckily, Bindidon has come to his senses, and abandoned the SkyDragons. He wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” He apologised, and claimed he accidentally wrote what he wrote, attempting to annoy someone!
So I suppose Binny will now adopt your GHE explanation “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Phew! No danger at all of being fried, boiled, roasted or toasted by the mythical SkyDragon. What a relief!
Mike Flynn,
What is GHE?
Is it related to the Second Law of Thermo?
What are you braying about?
Witless Wee Willy,
Skydragon cranks, GHE cultists, call them what you will, are those poor gullible fools who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Hence the SkyDragon name, fearful of the CO2 fuelled heat from the atmosphere, which will supposedly fry, boil, roast and toast us in the words of one famous SkyDragon cultist.
Luckily, Bindidon has come to his senses, and abandoned the SkyDragons. He wrote
I never intentionally wrote Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. because I never would ever believe such nonsense. He apologised, and claimed he accidentally wrote what he wrote, attempting to annoy someone!
So I suppose Binny will now adopt your GHE explanation not cooling, slower cooling.
Phew! No danger at all of being fried, boiled, roasted or toasted by the mythical SkyDragon. What a relief!
Mike Flynn,
Bordo thought that Kelvin Statement referred to the First Law.
It does not.
Do you have something to add regarding this topic?
No, you do not.
Keep braying instead!
Witless Wee Willy,
Skydragon cranks, GHE cultists, call them what you will, are those poor gullible fools who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Hence the SkyDragon name, fearful of the CO2 fuelled heat from the atmosphere, which will supposedly fry, boil, roast and toast us in the words of one famous SkyDragon cultist.
Luckily, Bindidon has come to his senses, and abandoned the SkyDragons. He wrote
“I never intentionally wrote Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” He apologised, and claimed he accidentally wrote what he wrote, attempting to annoy someone!
So I suppose Binny will now adopt your GHE explanation “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Phew! No danger at all of being fried, boiled, roasted or toasted by the mythical SkyDragon. What a relief!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Three identical Flynnson replies in a row…
Oh I forgot that this mentally deranged Aussie requests ‘100% freedom of speech’.
And it shows.
Binny,
I request nothing. Unlike you, and the rest of your ilk, I support free speech.
I understand why you are opposed to the concept.
Carry on.
wee willy…Thompson, aka Kelvin, was a passenger/poser. The real 2nd law was stated by Clausius in words as follows…’heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot’. He followed it up later with the mathematical statement, S = integral dq/T, which represents the concept of entropy that he invented.
The Clausius definition encapsulates the true meaning of the 2nd law. It is about the direction of heat transfer and not about the efficiency of a heat engine.
It was Carnot who theorized that heat was converted 100% to mechanical energy (work) and Thompson and Clausius both disagreed. However, as scientists, Thompson was inferior to Clausius intellectually. Clausius was a brilliant scientist who in his spare time, investigating heat, managed to lay the foundation for the kinetic theory of gases.
It was Clausius who proved why heat was lost during a process. He went right to the atomic level to prove it. He theorized that heat was used up internally in a body to raise the level of vibration of atoms. That was in a day long before atomic structure was understood.
Thompson was envious of Clausius, for whatever reason. He took every opportunity to denounce Clausius which, to me, is a sign of a bad scientist. Unfortunately for us in modern times, Clausius heeded the advice of Thompson to simplify the 1st law by stating internal energy as a lumped energy rather than its constituent parts of internal heat and internal work. For that reason, Thompson is responsible for the modern confusion that internal energy is a separate energy from heat and work.
Gordon Robertson
Since you are known to make unsupported opinions often I am throwing out the BS Flag on you!
I looked up both Lord Kelvin and Clausius.
Both were considered brilliant by their peers and both advanced science with their rigor.
Where do you get the support for you claim that Kelvin was envious of Clausius or that Kelvin was an inferior scientist mentally?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius
Please validate your claims or quit making claims you can’t support.
Kelvin’s peers were typical English twits who would be well qualified for Monty Python’s ‘Upper Class Twit of the Year’ contest. Clausius was an independent German thinker who excelled at science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxSM5y7Pfs&ab_channel=FallopianCanoeist
In the day of Kelvin in England a person got by through who he knew, not what he did. There were exceptions like Faraday, but he was frowned upon by the upper crust like “LORD” Kelvin who thought him a ruffian because he could not present his physics using math. Faraday was rescued by Maxwell, a brilliant Scottish mathematician who liked his work and put the math to it. Otherwise, Maxwell knew nothing of the physics behind what Faraday had discovered.
I would not normally defend a German over a fellow Brit but there are Germans who are brilliant like Clausius and deserve to be defended against snots like Kelvin. Clausius was a humble man who went about his science brilliantly. He also explained his work with great clarity. It is no secret that Kelvin was envious of his brilliance and took every opportunity to denigrate Clausius. In modern vernacular, I’d call him as a**hole.
Even with his ad homs Bordo needs to bend facts.
Clausius was actually Polish, and a contemporary to Kelvin.
Clausius and Kelvin statements are equivalent.
It is by obsessing over words like *warming* that Sky Dragon cranks become cranks.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Arkady tried for a gotcha, and failed miserably. He wrote –
“Would you continue to burn fossil fuels if scientists announced ‘there is a 95% chance that we will avoid catastrophe’?”
Of course. “Scientists” are people. Vague nonsense relating to unspecified “catastrophe”, accompanied by silliness like “95% confidence” makes it quite obvious that these “scientists” have no clue, and are living some bizarre fantasy.
As Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”. Maybe Arkady is not assigning any “expertise” to his “scientists”, but I doubt it.
What a gullible dingleberry is Arkady!
Arkady … Antonin
How much basic intelligence is required to distinguish between those names, Flynnster? Does your reading go beyond the first letter of a word?
And I see you’re resorting to American colloquialisms to try to convince everyone you’re not Australian. Just as when you burst onto the scene as ‘Swenson’ and used American spellings for the same purpose, only to lapse back into Australian spellings shortly afterwards.
Antonin,
My bad. One GHE cultist is indistinguishable from another at times.
For all we know ArK and Ant are one and the same. They both use various nyms. After all, one alarmist is the same as any other alarmist. to me.
Unless of course they belong to a race you choose to hate.
AQ projects.
What scientists? Hey Arkady, scientists say if you will jump off a cliff, then you won’t have to worry about it.
The left are the great destroyers of civilization….Victor Davis Hanson. Pretty accurate description of the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggAreJDoOmE
Stephen P Anderson
More evidence you do not possess independent thinking ability but will mindlessly absorb any information that justifies your belief system. You did say, at one time, you were a Chemist and mathematician. Both those disciplines require thinking ability.
Your video is just propaganda specifically designed to create the vegetative reactionary state you exist in currently.
You will not question your sources but blindly and mindlessly absorb them and now you are like a hive minded Borg. Your thought pattern is much closer to communistic than what you believe are communistic.
You are devoid of free-thought and just absorb endless propaganda to fuel your hostile state of mind. Really a sad thing to witness. Not that I will change your mindless state of empty thought, just absorb whatever the Talking Head tells you and generate the appropriate emotional response.
Here is actual crime statistics. It does not show this terror rise in crime as your Talking Head tells you. But you can’t question or look for yourself. You have lost the ability to research (essential for any science minded person).
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics?fbclid=IwAR3Wog_2juEC45XY4E2vAtP3ivb9Fi6yGgfYOW9noOEJZG4fzWZnsuFNTfI
This video really shows your current mental state.
You offer zero science posts, just come here to peddle the far right agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq4UHWSTdO8&t=270s
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman,
The propagandist would be you. Conservatives are not historically propagandists. Leftists are, like your idol Joseph Goebbels. And, Hanson is merely affirming my thoughts. It is pretty straightforward.
Earlier, Willard took a new tack, and now denies the existence of a GHE.
He wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You ask
“Is this your idea of the GHE?”
No idea what’s “GHE” but its your idea.
Cheers.”
Weird Wee Willy’s “silly semantic games” seem to be confusing him.
Willard has described the effect of something known as the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. Ah well, like Bindidon, he can disavow all knowledge of the GHE!
Cunning as a sewer rat, is Willard. Not as intelligent, probably.
Bill Hunter
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1581439
It seems NOAA has changed their value of the solar constant mean to much closer to the 1361 W/m^2 that is most often used in your list.
As you know scientists improve things over time to get more precise data.
The large variations might be how they average the mean. The amount of energy the Earth receives varies considerably over the year between aphelion and perihelion.
Here is a good video with the variations. I suppose you could easily get different results based upon how many measurements you took on the yearly journey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqIjluxLhU4
Norman,
According to the Australian BOM ” The power of the Sun at the Earth, per square metre is called the solar constant and is approximately 1370 watts per square metre (W/m2).”
Whom to believe?
Completely irrelevant in any case. GHE cultists are convinced that they can calculate the temperature of an unknown object by the amount of radiation falling on it!
Go on then, how hot does a wind get in sunlight? A mirror? A block of ice? The atmosphere?
What a pack of dingalings!
Aaaaaargh!
A window! How hot does a window get if the Sun is shining through it?
You can focus sunlight through a lens made of ice and it can burn wood. However, the ice does not melt.
Tell that to Puffman, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bill Hunter
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1581445
“So the only conclusion one can draw is heck we have no idea why its warming as we cant even pin the sun down to even suggest anything else is doing the warming.”
Not sure I agree with your conclusion. You should realize that you are not being scientific (letting the evidence guide you) but trying to find any and all possible ideas against human generated global warming.
Yes albedo changes could easily be a cause for warming or cooling Earth surface.
https://www.whereisroadster.com/planettemperature/
Here is a calculator that includes albedo. A 1% change in albedo changes the global temperature by 1C.
It is possible albedo could be the cause of the warming but it would have to be a consistent decline in albedo to cause the change in global temperatures being recorded.
I am hoping you do not have a mind like the cultists on the sight, who just state opinions with no evidence to support them (it seems you try to come up with evidence which I support).
Since we do not live in a magic Universe where things just happen without explanation I do not think your “no idea”. Causes of heating and cooling are very well known and even on a large scale as a planet it does not develop strange new laws to just warm or cool without “no idea”. The amount of energy the Earth surface receives is changing (and even if groups vary in their calculation of the solar constant, which is a mean, none are showing the the Solar constant is changing enough to cause the observed warming).
I do not know if you reject the GHE but it is real and I have demonstrated it on this blog many times using measured values.
Swenson and Clint R will not accept this. They are just science deniers. If you are not in that group don’t close you thinking to evidence. Keep and open mind to where the evidence goes. Yes humans can lie and even deceive themselves, sometimes out of ego and sometimes with malicious thoughts or financial gain but so far the human corruption seems to be weeded out of science. It might persist for some time but will be weeded out in the long-term process of scientific discovery.
Norman,
“I do not know if you reject the GHE but it is real and I have demonstrated it on this blog many times using measured values.”
This would be the GHE that Willard denies knowledge of the GHE (“No idea whats “GHE” but its your idea.”), or is it another GHE?
Maybe if you described this “GHE”, people like Willard (and others) might have some idea of what you are talking about!
Otherwise, anybody who agrees that the Earth’s surface was initially molten, and has since cooled, might think you are just another ignorant GHE believer, living in a fantasy.
Norman says:
”I do not know if you reject the GHE but it is real and I have demonstrated it on this blog many times using measured values.”
——————-
Well you better contact NCAR and let them know they are looking for a proof.
A bureaucracy looking for truth.
C’mon man!
Don’t send poor Norman down that rabbit hole.
Everyone knows we are living in an Ice Age.
And you might find a greenhouse effect in a
Greenhouse global climate.
And a Greenhouse global climate has a warm ocean.
And Icehouse global climate has ocean which is 5 C
or colder.
Ours being about 3.5 C
The ocean surface is warmer than land surface, the ocean surface
is 70% of entire Earth surface, hence the top of ocean’s temperature
controls global average surface temperatures. And entire ocean average temperature [averaging about 3.5 C] controls the ocean surface average temperature.
I almost missed this latest nonsense from “Noman” — “I do not know if you reject the GHE but it is real and I have demonstrated it on this blog many times using measured values.”
Norman can’t support that crap. He’s just making things up, again. He’s the one that invented “square orbits”!
That’s his advantage. He knows no science and doesn’t follow the scientific method. When he gets caught, he goes into meltdown. Then he has to go back on his medication….
Earlier, Mike Flynn brayed…something.
Who cares!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard… yes the globe is warmer than average at present, but the extremes in both Asia and North America cancel each other out. Extreme weather is normal, unless you buy into the idea that our sins are making the globe’s weather more extreme. I have yet to see any convincing data showing such. I was taught that climate is weather averaged over 30 years not what we experience day to day.
walter…if you look at anomalies around the planet, there are places that are 5C above the baseline. Since the warming given is less than 1C, it must mean there are places where the average is below the baseline by at least 4C.
There is more. The locales showing +5C are usually found in the Arctic and they move around month to month. They are usually surrounded by contours as well, where the temps vary several degrees C.
Your point?
As an alarmist, you’d lack the intelligence to understand.
I have already stated my point several times. A global average temperature has no meaning. I was simply conveying to Walter that the 1C or so warming claimed as an average is an intermediate temperature between extremes that range from about 5C above it to 4C below it. And that the 5C warming spots are in the Arctic and constantly move around regularly.
Whereas the Arctic sometimes shows warm spots up to 5C above the baseline, Antarctica just as often shows cooling down to 4C below it.
Saying it has no meaning is an assertion without justification.
A,
Maybe you can say how meaningful a “global average temperature” is?
It’s not the temperature of anything in particular – not air temperature, not surface temperature. Useless. Meaningless.
If you believe otherwise, you might share your justification – only If you feel like it, of course.
No GHE – you cant even describe it in any way that reflects reality, can you?
Keep on trying to annoy people – you aren’t even much good at that, are you?
Mike Flynn,
First you tried to minimize the importance of estimates while touting the temperature of the early Earth. Then you tried to minimize the importance of averaging when you keep touting an average estimate of the temperature of the early Earth.
What are you braying about?
Gordon spouts another absurdity: “A global average temperature has no meaning.”
Of course Gordon just spouts such nonsense for attention. But, it’s funny that he makes such statements as he clogs the blog involved in the new technology of determining a robust global average temperature!
Funnier still is Puffman being banned from the site multiple times for denying the greenhouse effect and being an overall asshat!
Besides:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Silly willy is so jealous of those that understand why the GHE is bogus. I try to make it so easy to understand. Maybe when he grows up?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
You said it many times already, Puffman, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387866
Riddle me this – why can’t I quote the username you took back then?
Exactly, the GHE is bogus.
(There’s no © needed for the word “bogus”, silly willy.)
So you say, Puffman, yet you are on a blog from a guy who believes in the greenhouse effect.
That guy kicked you out a long while ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582798
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So you say, Puffman, yet you are on a blog from a guy who believes in the greenhouse effect.
That guy kicked you out a long while ago:”
Do you have a point, or are you just attempting (and failing) to be annoying?
Yes, Mike.
I have a point.
Should I care if you don’t get it?
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote
“So you say, Puffman, yet you are on a blog from a guy who believes in the greenhouse effect.
That guy kicked you out a long while ago:”
Do you have a point, or are you just attempting (and failing) to be annoying?
Why do you keep repeating yourself, Mike?
Gordon Robertson,
You’ve hit the mark. The anomalies in the Arctic raise some doubts. The limited number of stations in that region and the presence of considerable missing data make it challenging to assess the accuracy of the information. Managing missing data poses a significant challenge, especially considering that there’s only one opportunity to capture real-world observations. Moreover, the stations are situated in communities with high energy consumption, which is quite reasonable given the extreme cold. There was a study conducted in areas experiencing polar night that highlighted how intensive energy use results in artificial warmth, setting them apart from the surrounding regions.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S000143381509011X#/page-1
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/study-proves-urban-heat-islands-exist-even-in-the-arctic/
And now Walter endorses “But the Arctic” squirrel.
Perhaps he should beware his wishes:
https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2023/executive-summary-2023/
Willard, there’s no need to perceive everything as a squirrel. This statement about the Arctic is simply a contribution to the conversation, not necessarily meant to provoke reactions. In contrast, you appear to enjoy making insinuations.
Walter, a squirrel is a squirrel is a squirrel.
Most temperature anomalies do not lead to extreme weather events. The two types of trend may be correlated. Sometimes they are not.
The Arctic has nothing to do here, except that it echoes your silly challenge to Binny above.
We can do it here alright. Go get your flying monkeys!
You are a monkey.
So are you, Walter.
When will you try to send Jim & Tim tag team?
Why are you unable to accept the WUWT invitation? The benefit there is that I receive an email notification when I see your response, unlike here, where I have to return and check for updates. I invited you first.
I already told you, Walter.
Playing dumb does not good well on you.
Please leave that to Mike Flynn.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Your gibberish machine wrote –
“I already told you, Walter.
Playing dumb does not good well on you.
Please leave that to Mike Flynn.”
You need to teach your gibberish machine to write English. “Does not good well on you” might be good gibberish, but is certainly not good English.
More work needed, Wee Willy!
Thank you for showing Walter how to play dumb, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How come you never criticize climate alarmists Willard?
Oh, Walter –
http://climateball.net/but-alarmism
You’re a natural!
“Middle Ground. We need to stand between deniers and alarmists
☞ That false equivalence is an old gambit. It is as silly as comparing Nazis who kill millions with Antifas who smash windows.”
In what way are “deniers” comparable to Nazis?
You befriended Mike Flynn and Bordo, Walter, and you are trying to hide behind the Gorman brothers.
Do you really think you’re the middle ground?
I’m not taking a stance here. Just genuinely curious about your wording on your website. Why the deflection and the attempted shots you’re aiming my way. What’s with the defensive vibe in your choice of words?
Of course you don’t take any stance, Walter.
You are Just Asking Questions.
About alarmists, no less.
About the Arctic, a place where the evidence is so overwhelming you should be trying to segue to Antarctica.
Who do you think you’re kidding here?
Bordo denies the greenhouse effect. Mike Flynn denies the greenhouse effect. Puffman denies the greenhouse effect.
Where have you criticized them?
The Arctic warms more than all other areas regardless of what is causing the warming trend.
;-/
I refrain from critiquing their arguments due to my lack of knowledge on the greenhouse effect; I cannot either affirm or substantiate their assertions. I perceive the greenhouse effect as a boring subject to learn about. However, I do express skepticism towards advocates of AGW), a term more fitting than ‘alarmists,’ based on the seemingly irrational statements they have made that surpass the bounds of reason:
Next year the natural and temporary braking effect of La Nia will wane. The full-on gas pedal will invigorate warming over the coming year and continue into the future, along with more severe wet, dry and hot extremes, until policies are in place to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions, Richard Allan, professor of climate science at University of Reading told BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64032458
:-/
The conventional climate science community holds the view that averaging temperature is a meaningful metric. However, there’s a paradox in this approach, as averaging temperature increases variance, contrary to the intended purpose of reducing variance to obtain a more representative figure for the entire sample. This was the point I aimed to discuss with you on WUWT, an area where I have more knowledge. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering whether mainstream climate science could be incorrect on other aspects, including the greenhouse effect. Perhaps researchers like Swenson and Gordon have extensively studied these matters, leading them to different conclusions. In science, it only takes one person to disprove a theory.
You still haven’t answered my question: what makes deniers comparable to Nazis and alarmists
to Antifa?
> averaging temperature increases variance
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. Consider a day in Denver where the high temperature is 43F and the low is 8F, resulting in an average of 25.5F. A different day with a high of 37F and a low of 14F would also yield the same average of 25.5F. Both scenarios would be treated equivalently in terms of warmth or coldness.
Walter says: “I refrain from critiquing their arguments due to my lack of knowledge on the greenhouse effect; I cannot either affirm or substantiate their assertions.”
Walter, you only have to understand the very basics to debunk the GHE nonsense. You don’t have to be an expert on the climate, or be able to accurately predict climate. All you need to do is understand the GHE is bogus. Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere and can NOT be meaningfully compared to one. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
Variance measures the distance from an average.
The whole idea that averages change variance is utterly bogus.
Thank you Clint.
Variance is designed to gauge the distance of individual values from the average on a given day. However, the assumption that the standard deviation for the anomaly corresponds to the maximum and minimum for that day is flawed. In the example I provided, an anomaly of 25.5 has a potential maximum deviation of at least 43F and a minimum deviation of 8F. These values, which are likely not even the absolute extremes, demonstrate a significant range. Consequently, when assigning an average temperature for a specific day, it fails to encapsulate the complete variance of that particular anomaly, as it can manifest in multiple different ‘combinations.’ We’re taking the average of just two numbers here.
> the assumption that the standard deviation for the anomaly corresponds to the maximum and minimum for that day
It’s actually the other way around, Walter. The anomaly indicates the variance.
It’s the same as the volatility for a stock price. The bigger the swings during the period of interest, the bigger the variance.
Bigger volatility, bigger risk. Risk costs money.
Yep investing in the stock market is risky. Not nearly as good of an investment as your own business or your own home though. As they say nothing ventured nothing gained. So the biggest risk is taking no risk.
Anomalies are not direct measures of variance; they represent deviations from a baseline, which, in this case, are 30 year averages.
Walter,
No, the extremes in Asia and North America do not cancel each other out. Check the graph at the top of the page. Back in my days, we were taught to be consistent.
As for your deflection, please consider that we are not dealing with extreme events:
https://climateball.net/but-extreme-events/
That was not a deflection, just an elaboration on my lack of clarity earlier. Gordon’s response following mine perfectly captured my point. That’s precisely how an anomaly operates.
Gordon’s position is that spatial average temperatures have no meaning. Yet the Konstantinov et al. 2016 publication you cited spatially averages temperatures so I question how much his response actually captured your point. Additionally and over on WUWT you told me that your position aligns with another frequent commenter who thinks sums and averages are the same thing, addition and division are the same thing, the derivative df/dx of f(x)=x/n is 1, and bunch of other absurd algebraic claims that he defends vehemently that even a middle schooler would scratch their head at. You seemed to be okay with it or at the very least did not want to challenge them. My point…you should be careful with your declarations of who you want to align with because we’re going to take you at your word whether you realize what you are aligning with or not.
bdgwx says:
”Gordons position is that spatial average temperatures have no meaning.”
Well when you consider it has been put into the context of a planet with no atmosphere vs a planet with an atmosphere with greenhouse gases. It does have very little if any meaning.
Now if the comparison were to a planet with an atmosphere with ghg’s vs planet with an atmosphere without ghg’s. Then you might have something worth discussing.
Bdgwx,
I appreciate your efforts to clarify my stance, but my position regarding the Gormans remains unchanged. I want to emphasize that extreme weather conditions are inherent and can be expected. Even in a world that is 1 degree Celsius colder than the baseline (whatever that may be), there will still be areas with extremely warm conditions and others with extremely cold conditions. This is a non-controversial observation, yet some individuals here seem reluctant to accept it, insisting on portraying Earth as having a severe fever. Now, let me ask, have you read the GUM since our last exchange? Can you effectively apply it to real-world scenarios?
b,
” . . . because were going to take you at your word.”
Ooooooh, how scary! Should he merely hide out for a while, or relocate to a foreign land?
Don’t be silly. You are completely powerless. An empty implied threat just makes you look incompetent as well as impotent!
Maybe you can explain why the hottest surface temperatures on Earth occur where there are the least GHGs in the atmosphere?
And the lowest?
No GHE in evidence, or necessary. Just very basic freshman physics. Obviously, self appointed “climate scientists” slept through their lectures, or were too dim too understand them.
Go on, give me your “word”, so I can take you at it.
What a presumptuous dummy you are!
WH: I want to emphasize that extreme weather conditions are inherent and can be expected.
Yes. I agree.
WH: Even in a world that is 1 degree Celsius colder than the baseline (whatever that may be), there will still be areas with extremely warm conditions and others with extremely cold conditions.
Yes. I agree.
WH: This is a non-controversial observation, yet some individuals here seem reluctant to accept it, insisting on portraying Earth as having a severe fever.
No one is challenging the fact that there is spatial variability in temperatures.
WH: Now, let me ask, have you read the GUM since our last exchange?
Actually I have. I refer to it frequently.
WH: Can you effectively apply it to real-world scenarios?
Yes. That’s the whole point. It is intended to be used for evaluating uncertainty in real world scenarios. In fact, there is even a method for using the spatial variance of temperatures to estimate the uncertainty of the global average. For example, a type A evaluation of the UAH TLT yields u = 0.13 C which is close to the type B evaluation provided by Christy et al. 2003 of 0.10 C. I consider UAH to be a real world scenario.
bdgwx,
Your characterization of including temperature measurement within the broader category of real-world scenarios suggests that you still don’t understand my point. But if our focus is transitioning to UAH measurements, could you please guide me to a couple of papers that specifically address the satellite-based measurement of temperature? They will provide a more comprehensive foundation for my explanation compared to using land surface measurements as a reference.
Christy et al. 2003
Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSUAMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/20/5/1520-0426_2003_20_613_eeovom_2_0_co_2.xml
Indeed it was a deflection, for that’s not how weather events anomalies work, e.g.:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41347-3
Besides, compare and contrast:
[200 HOURS] A weather observatory in the Chinese capital as of Sunday had recorded more than 300 hours of sub-freezing temperatures since Dec. 11 the most since records began, in 1951, according to the official newspaper Beijing Daily.
[] Beijing topped its record for high temperature days in a year on Tuesday with 27 days as a blistering heatwave sweeps through the Chinese capital.
Good observation Willard. That’s exactly what we should expect when something hotter warms something colder.
Thus we see warming occurring during solar maximums, solar grand maximums, orbital eccentricity that hits high levels every 20 years with the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn and internal ocean mixing events of ENSO and the multi-decadal ocean oscillations.
Then add volcanic activity and other events that affect ozone on an unpredictable basis and you have the makings for a pretty chaotic system of climate change. that you guys like to handwave away one by one in isolation as being incapable of explaining recent warming by themselves.
We have discussed somewhat one of those in here with different estimates of the solar constant spanning perhaps as much as 27w/m2. Obviously the current estimate of orbit eccentricity (don’t know what year that was though) can’t account for that as the one I saw was credited with about 6w/m2 per annum variation.
So I have to assume that the larger variation is a combination of error, uncertainty of measurement, or astrological in nature with all the planets circulating around us in orbits of 166 years or less stretching and contracting the earth’s orbit eccentricity. Heck Milankovitch has been estimating that planetary circulation has the ability to throw us into a glacial period when alignments become ideal for that which only allegedly occurs infrequently.
Gill tries to agree on one thing and then amplifies another, completely irrelevant thing. The very thing he tried to peddle above.
Fancy that.
Willard your point is all garbled.
Gill plays dumb instead of owning his peddling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is such a narcissist that he thinks anybody can understand the garble he posts.
[GILL] Good observation Willard.
[ALSO GILL] Willard is such a narcissist that he thinks anybody can understand the garble he posts.
Did I say you never get anything right?
Gill understands and does not understand, often at the same time.
Willard that’s a stretch. I don’t recall saying you are both right and wrong at the same time. Perhaps you have some links. I am always interested in becoming aware of my own shortcomings.
Gill admits he lacks flexibility.
There are programs for that on FB.
Willard claims he is perfect and found out he was perfect on FB
Gill likes to beg, questions among other things.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I read once more a typical statement:
” The limited number of stations in that region and the presence of considerable missing data make it challenging to assess the accuracy of the information. ”
The GHCN daily station data set
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
contains over 100,000 stations located worldwide, of which over 40,000 measure temperature.
Currently, there are in the station list over 2200 stations with latitude above 60N, of which about 1180 have data since 1960 and contain enough data to create their own baseline (and hence anomalies) for the reference period 1991-2020.
{ What is conversely correct, however is that GHCN daily contains only very few stations in Antarctica (102); and only 26 (!!!) have had enough baseline data. }
*
Here is a graph showing GHCN daily’s ARCTIC and ANTARCTIC station data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ylZ2GbGVpsvthxE5fOZPE5WFKZqTRDi0/view
*
As a comparison source, here is UAH 6.0 LT:
http://tinyurl.com/UAH-6-LT
out of which we obtain LT data above land for the North and South poles:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ALcbRa1FoBFlN7ms7KqImxR7mq-AbwtF/view
*
Finally, here is a superposition of GHCN daily and UAH 6.0 LT land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TOXwZxgxvDtUF6EdmCR3QRSiRp2_YxvG/view
We see that
– while the meager station data for the South pole shows similar to UAH’s (for 1979: -0.02 C / decade for stations vs. +0.09 for the LT over land),
– the station data for the North pole shows a trend more than twice higher than LT (+0.64 C / decade for stations vs. +0.24 for the LT over land).
**
As always, it’s easy to write
” The anomalies in the Arctic raise some doubts. ”
It is less easy to download data, process it and prove the doubts are correct.
When I try the link to the “detailed analysis” I get this:
The connection has timed out
The server at nsstc.uah.edu is taking too long to respond.
Bindidon,
>”For years we have had a satellite constantly orbiting the moon (LRO) on which the Diviner device is installed, which, among other things, measures the lunar temperature day after day.
Measurements for the equatorial average temperature
Moon: ~206K
Earth: ~299K
Measurements for the polar average temperature
Moon: ~98K
Earth: ~256K (North Pole) ~230K (South Pole)”
Your source:
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
–
As I said, it is impossible for Moon having the equatorial average temperature Moon: ~206K…
As you Bindidon always supported, Moon’s effective temperature (the average uniform surface temperature) Te = 270,4 K.
Yet, it cannot exceed the ~206K (the equatorial average temperature), because we face an obvious PARADOX here !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
With the Moon, you can point a solar panel at the sun, and get 1/2 the time, getting average of 1360 watts of sunlight per square meter.
But the lunar surface doesn’t point at the sun. So with lunar surface, 1/2 the sun lit surface is quite hot and Morning and late afternoon is warm to cold. the sunlit daytime starts very cold, and ends very cold, then slowly gets very, very cold. But if given more time could very slowly get even colder.
Also when sun is low on horizon, topography of lunar surface makes large difference. Or when sun is low on horizon one gets very long shadows. And of course with north and south polar region is a region of very long shadows. Most of it, is in shadow, with smaller parts being in higher areas being mostly in sunlight. So if slope steep enough, one could have small region heated to 100 C or more but on average it’s about -100 C {because most, pick number, 95% is in shadow}. So roughly on average, you have 45 degree, west and east and north and south from solar zenith point, where topography makes little difference, and surface is quite hot and about 75% of surface area of moon is cold or very cold.
But if go 1 meter below the lunar surface, one has a fairly uniform temperature. The further poleward, lowers it. But it was measure in Apollo program. But all Apollo missions were nearer to equator regions. And we should measure 1 meter below surface when go to the southern polar region.
But with Apollo it was about -35 C.
So, if looking averages, 1 meter below the surface stay near a temperature of about -40 C. Which is warmer than 206 K.
So moon has natural ice box within 1 meter of surface. One also heat lunar surface below 1 meter, and it keeps hot for more than 1 month.
” As you Bindidon always supported, Moons effective temperature (the average uniform surface temperature) Te = 270,4 K. ”
Where did I support what I never knew about?
Where does this ‘average uniform surface temperature Te = 270.4 K’ come from?
Show us a source!
Moon Fact Sheet
https://nssd
c.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
To say a measured temperature is wrong just because it doesn’t match the computed blackbody temperature: sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Binny,
Yes, that would be as silly as GHE cultists claiming that the Earth’s “temperature” (whatever that is) should really be 33 K lower – to agree with bizarre misuse of physical laws!
A measured temperature, as meaningless as it might be, is a measurement.
Bindidon,
>”To say a measured temperature is wrong just because it doesnt match the computed blackbody temperature: sorry, that is utter nonsense.”
–
Of course the Moon’s Te =270,4K is what is utterly wrong!
Because Te =270,4K is a mathematical abstraction.
Not only Te =270,4K is a mathematical abstraction, but also it is a very much mistakenly computed mathematical abstraction.
Because, as it is already many times has been said to you, there is always a strong specular reflection from smooth surface spheres, like our Moon is.
Thus, the Φ =0,47
Instead of using the simplified (1 -a)So, there should be used the
Φ(1 -a)So
–
So the mathematical abstraction Te in the case of our Moon is correctly computed then as Te = 224K
The correctly computed number for the theoretical abstraction for our Moon
Te =224K is very much closer
to the measured T ~206K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson,
> “Yes, that would be as silly as GHE cultists claiming that the Earth’s “temperature” (whatever that is) should really be 33 K lower – to agree with bizarre misuse of physical laws!
A measured temperature, as meaningless as it might be, is a measurement.”
–
Excellent point, thank you!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindi may be confused by all the values for Moon. Maybe I can simplify it for him.
Moon’s average surface temperature at its equator (NASA Fact Sheet) — 242.5 K
Imaginary sphere’s average surface temp, with Moon’s albedo — 270.4 K
CV’s calculated Moon average surface temp — 224 K
Wrongly claimed value for Moon’s average surface temp at equator — 206 K
Now, it’s easy to see CV is correct: “Yet, it cannot exceed the ~206K (the equatorial average temperature), because we face an obvious PARADOX here !!!”
Solar wind
speed: 443.2 km/sec
density: 1.70 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Dec 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 78
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
“All of these sunspots have stable magnetic fields that pose no threat for strong solar flares”
Spots going to farside, don’t any coming from farside {though a big one is suppose arrive in few days}.
Dec seems will be well over 100 sunspots. Or will not go below curved line, and guessing Jan will.
Solar wind
speed: 301.5 km/sec
density: 4.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 48
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.93×10 10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
Nearside has 3 numbered spot, 3531 and 3533 which going to farside
and 3534 has not reached mid point yet. I see no spots coming from
farside, but there is suppose to be big one coming.
Solar wind
speed: 407.8 km/sec
density: 7.87 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 44
“Sunspot AR3536 has a ‘delta-class’ magnetic field that poses a continued threat for strong X-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.82×10 10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
I think one of big spots came to nearside, numbered 3536.
But there is only two spot numbers left on nearside, and
one leaving within a day. Jan is starting with low spot number.
The Dec spot number is 114.2
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The drawn average line {blue} is much higher than smooth predicted red line. And my guess is eventually the blue line will cross the red line. But of first the monthly numbers have to first do it, and guessed that might have had happened in Nov or Dec.
And it didn’t. So, third guess is Jan.
And still looking for that spotless day.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Recent scientific studies have shown that the probability of certain extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Harvey which severely impacted Louisiana and Texas in 2017, or the heat wave that swept the Pacific Northwest in 2021, have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change. The risks of future extreme weather-related disasters are amplified both by climate change and by increased development in areas that are prone to floods, fires, and droughts. Moreover, an extensive body of work documents that low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by extreme weather, often due to discriminatory historical practices such as redlining that have affected housing patterns.
https://staff.cgd.ucar.edu/cdeser/docs/pcast.extreme_weather_risk_changing_climate.pcast23.pdf
Silly Billy Willy,
“. . . have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics cause nothing, except predictions of doom, disaster, catastrophe, from GHE cultists.
Why are you so ignorant and gullible?
Mike Flynn,
The source from which existing things derive their existence is also that to which they return at their destruction.
What are you braying about?
Silly Billy Willy,
“. . . have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics cause nothing, except predictions of doom, disaster, catastrophe, from GHE cultists.
Why are you so ignorant and gullible?
Mike Flynn,
The UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2023 is +0.91 deg. C.
What are you braying about?
Silly Billy Willy,
“. . . have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics cause nothing, except predictions of doom, disaster, catastrophe, from GHE cultists.
Why are you so ignorant and gullible?
Mike Flynn,
Quotation was usually introduced as a somewhat shady device, and the introduction was accompanied by a stern sermon on the sin of confusing the use and mention of expressions.
What are you braying about?
Silly Billy Willy,
” . . have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics cause nothing, except predictions of doom, disaster, catastrophe, from GHE cultists.
Why are you so ignorant and gullible?
Mike Flynn,
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
What are you braying about?
Silly Billy Willy,
” . . have increased dramatically over the last several decades because of climate change.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics cause nothing, except predictions of doom, disaster, catastrophe, from GHE cultists.
Why are you so ignorant and gullible?
Mike Flynn,
You are free in performing an action if you could have done otherwise if you had chosen to.
Is it why you are not free to bray?
wee willy quotes from Trenberth’s alma mater at UCAR. Same old, same old…weather becomes a climate disaster.
What would one expect from Trenberth and associates after the propaganda he has unleashed on us? His energy budget diagram shows energy back-radiated from a trace gas to be greater than incoming solar energy and heat being dissipated from the surface 5 to 10 times greater by radiation than conduction/convection. Shula proved the opposite is the case, where heat is dissipated 260 times more effectively by conduction/convection than by radiation, an inefficient means of dissipating heat.
Now UCAR is playing up a weather system trapped over the Pacific Northwest that had nothing to do with climate change. We had experienced nothing like it in the past and nothing like it since 2021. We know it was a weather system since at the southern end of the heat dome, temperatures ranged from +40C under the dome to a mild 20C just outside it.
Even NOAA declared the heat dome a product of La Nina.
Bordo keeps riffing with his usual litany of Climateball stories.
At least he has the prudence to stay away from extreme events.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate Boogeyman bedtime story update
Bill McKibben’s yearend message…
Arkady,
>”Canada practically turned into a barbecue, with cities covered in smoke.”
–
Do you count the enourmous amounts of CO2 emitted from the every year’s wild fires around the globe as us too?
Bill McKibben???
Ark, do you swallow his nonsense? He has NO understanding of science. He’s only in this to write book$. Keep rotting your brain and soon you’ll be at the bottom, like Gordon and Norman. Even worse, you could end up like worthless Willard.
You need to learn the basics. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
That was in 2013.
What are you still doing here?
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
Still trying your inept social engineering attempts?
Quite apart from putting words in Dr Spencer’s mouth – [cranks] – it is fairly obvious that 2013 is not 2023.
Opinions change – phlogiston, caloric and the luminiferous ether are no longer widely accepted as fact. The “greenhouse effect” is not able to be described in any way which agrees with reality – any more than phlogiston or caloric!
You have quoted Mike Flynn on several occasions, clearly saying that the GHE does not exist, as proof that it has been described! Not looking too good for you, is it?
Crank up your gibberish generator, and post some more irrelevant incomprehensible nonsense.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
I cited this comment earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387866
Right after this comment, here you were:
A bit later you changed to a sock puppet.
Why is that?
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
Still trying your inept social engineering attempts?
Quite apart from putting words in Dr Spencers mouth [cranks] it is fairly obvious that 2013 is not 2023.
Opinions change phlogiston, caloric and the luminiferous ether are no longer widely accepted as fact. The “greenhouse effect” is not able to be described in any way which agrees with reality any more than phlogiston or caloric!
You have quoted Mike Flynn on several occasions, clearly saying that the GHE does not exist, as proof that it has been described! Not looking too good for you, is it?
Crank up your gibberish generator, and post some more irrelevant incomprehensible nonsense.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
You are free to believe in what you want.
You ignore everything you’re being told.
Have you started your blog yet?
Cheers.
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
Still trying your inept social engineering attempts?
Quite apart from putting words in Dr Spencers mouth [cranks] it is fairly obvious that 2013 is not 2023.
Opinions change phlogiston, caloric and the luminiferous ether are no longer widely accepted as fact. The “greenhouse effect” is not able to be described in any way which agrees with reality any more than phlogiston or caloric!
You have quoted Mike Flynn on several occasions, clearly saying that the GHE does not exist, as proof that it has been described! Not looking too good for you, is it?
Crank up your gibberish generator, and post some more irrelevant incomprehensible nonsense.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn?
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
Still trying your inept social engineering attempts?
Quite apart from putting words in Dr Spencers mouth [cranks] it is fairly obvious that 2013 is not 2023.
Opinions change phlogiston, caloric and the luminiferous ether are no longer widely accepted as fact. The “greenhouse effect” is not able to be described in any way which agrees with reality any more than phlogiston or caloric!
You have quoted Mike Flynn on several occasions, clearly saying that the GHE does not exist, as proof that it has been described! Not looking too good for you, is it?
Crank up your gibberish generator, and post some more irrelevant incomprehensible nonsense.
Off you go – keep flogging a dead horse!
Mike Flynn,
How come you still deny being Mike Flynn?
J. D. Huffman, aka Clint R, was being his usual rude self back then but he tried it with the wrong person…Roy. He had already been banned for the same rudeness as g.e.r.a.n or something like that. His new nym, Huffman, was him illegally trying to sneak back onto th site. Since then, Clint has done some serious boot-licking and been re-instated.
Mike Flynn was never banned.
I mean, only a seriously rude person would come onto a blog run by a well-known Ph.D like Roy and flip him off like that. He told Roy that he was wrong. Roy was not responding as to whether he was right or wrong, he was responding to a rude twerp who lacked the class to speak civilly.
The rude twerp is still with us but since being banned he has been kissing up to Roy, going so far as to chastise people for long posts and harassing them about whether they have contributed financially to Roy’s site. These days he restricts himself to harassing and being rude to other posters. He has at least gotten smart enough not to harass the man.
Bordo has a self-serving interpretation of:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
It is self-serving because we can clearly read that Roy was fed up with cranks like him ten years ago.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Oh dear, attempts at manipulation not working out too well?
Maybe you could try convincing anybody that the result of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Watch out for flying pigs while you try.
Or you could appoint yourself blog moderator?
Let me know how you get on.
Gordon, you’ve been stalking me long enough to know I don’t get bothered by insults and false accusations. It’s all part of my bringing reality to you perverts and psychos.
You’re very similar to Norman, but even he isn’t st00pid enough to try to fake being an engineer….
Gordon, you’ve been stalking me long enough to know I don’t get bothered by insults and false accusations. It’s all part of my bringing reality to you perverts and psychos.
You’re very similar to Norman, but even he isn’t stμpid enough to try to fake being an engineer….
A handbag fight between Sky Dragon cranks is exactly what we need.
Between Puffman and Bordo, which side will Mike Flynn take?
Aw shucks, Clintella mentioned me in her post. I guess she wants to kiss and make up.
I recall an interview with McKibbin when he was asked whether burning trees and legitimizing it as bio-fuel was not a contradiction. Bill tripped all over his big mouth trying to evade the question. McKibbin is yet another confused alarmist.
Alarmists are quick to contradict themselves by advising that natural gas and burning trees are eco-friendly while other forms of fossil fuels are not.
With only three days left in the month, and the year, my expectation for the December anomaly stands at +0.83 C, +/-0.05 C using 1991-2020 climatology.
That’s down from the scorch-o-rama of the preceding trimester, but a fitting end to the year.
A,
Weather predictions? A 12 year old could do as well, if not better!
Do you have anything useful to contribute? A description of the GHE, perhaps?
One that explains four and a half billion years of global cooling.
How hard can it be?
That’s not a bad guess, Ark. We know it will be lower than November, with the remnants of the HTE gone.
The Polar Vortex is now fully established at North Pole. No trace of it remains at South Pole. Things are getting back to normal. The only snag is the El Niño, which still hangs on. The EN is now the only abnormal forcing. So although a drop in UAH is expected, the EN will be resisting. Even though we could see something as low as +0.65C, I’ll be more conservative and guess +0.75C.
I agree it’s not a bad guess. I argue however that HTE is still there, but is decreasing in influence.
There are 4 different ways theorized as to how the volcano affected global temps.
1- Water vapor contribution to radiation from sky
2- Ozone depletion
3- Salt water in the stratosphere
4- Polar Vortex disturbance
1 is fiction for the same reason the GHE is fiction. 2 and 3, I am not knowledgeable of. 4 is the one I observed and was able to predict UAH values, for months. That is the HTE that I believe has ended, based on the now normal functionings of the PV.
Well Clint the depletion of ozone was sold in the IPCC AR3 as a cooling of the earth to explain in part why warming wasn’t going at 3c per decade. But that goes away with your #1 cause for the same reason.
Now we have the US State Department saying this:
”The phasing out of ODS prevented up to an additional 2.5C temperature increase by the end of this century while also protecting humans from harmful ultraviolet radiation.”
https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundary-issues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/
HCFCs are both ODS and powerful greenhouse gases: the most commonly used HCFC is nearly 2,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its global warming potential (GWP)
——————————-
Looks like they figured this out from warming surges after the release of HCFCs in the atmosphere and decided to blame it on the 3rd grader radiation model. Pretty sneaky.
HCFC is nearly 2,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its global warming potential (GWP)”
Thanks Bill. I had missed that. Wow, what will they dream up next?
What one can expect is no detailed explanation. Too embarrassing to talk about. The smart ones will continue to refuse to match up one on one with skeptical experts. The less smart ones come here to argue really silly stuff like how circles only apply to stretched orbits and not to stretched moons.
“The phasing out of ODS prevented up to an additional 2.5C temperature increase by the end of this century ”
This is an estimate of the maximum ‘additional’ warming that would be avoided, ‘by the end of the century’.
We are nowhere near the end of the century!
LOL! Right on cue like a trained fish.
“Looks like they … ”
Nope. That was not what ‘they’ did.
“What one can expect is no detailed explanation. ”
Or you could go and look for the actual explanation of “Global warming potential” instead of just speculating.
And no doubt with that comment you have a source to provide. . .right?
“Global Warming Potential
The GWP is defined as the ratio of the amount of heat trapped by 1kg of gas during 100 years to the amount of heat trapped by the same mass of CO2 during the same period.”
The writer is obviously away with the fairies.
Complete nonsense. Just more SkyDragon cult nonsense. Only gullible dingleberries (or the mentally afflicted) believe such fairytales!
Yep self validation by begging the question.
Clint,
the GHE is only fiction for well mixed GHGs such as CO2 and CH4. It’s real for water vapor once you’re above its IR saturation altitude. Since the HTE water vapor increase occurred above this altitude, it could produce warming. It depends on exactly where it ended up.
Ozone depletion has a couple of effects. Probably the main one is allowing more UV radiation to reach the surface.
It’s not a bad guess, but how are you getting an uncertainty down to 0.05 C?
Ark, why do you think it will be lower than November? Nino 3.4 has remained about the same as November and the typical 3-4 month lag would mean El Nino effects from earlier months s/b stronger in December.
Watch SpaceX launch a Falcon Heavy with the X-37B secret spaceplane! #USSF52
Everyday Astronaut 1.51M subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYRSYOPBSYA
gb…what do you think of the robot allegedly attacking an engineer is a Tesla factory?
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/report-robot-arm-attack-tesla-plant-left-engineer-injured-trail-blood/OU5Z7AUH2ZHJPKTMCI36KTWPRM/
“Attack”.
Some guy badly operating machines.
Tired, drugs, in a hurry, or whatever.
Apparently they had cut the power to a couple of robots and a third bot was not powered down. I have seen dumb mistakes like that made in industrial environments.
Of course it did not attack him, it was moving like it was programmed to move an the ijit got in the way.
ant…”Saying it has no meaning is an assertion without justification”.
***
Ant is upset at my claim that the reported average global temperature is 1C or so, since 1850, yet there are parts of the planet 5C warmer than average while other parts are 4C below average. He wants proof.
Here you go, 40+ years of it…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
The opening screen shows a map of UAH temperature anomalies as a series of contours with colours representing the different average temperatures. There is a large swath of yellow-orange over Europe and Asia. There is a scale below the graph but if you zoom in, UAH has conveniently included markers in the contours.
You can see that the darker orange colour in the middle is +3.5C whereas the outer yellowish colour is +1.5C. Nestled in the warmer contour, to the right of the UK and over Scandinavia, there is a blue contour with the inner contour represent -2.5C while the outer section is -1.5C.
Between the -1.5C area and the +3.5C area we have a temperature difference of 5C. That is not about longitudinal distances it is along the relatively same lines of latitude.
Weather!!!
Now look at the huge swath around the planet in the Tropics, extending into the Northern and Southern Hemisphere that has a contour of 1.5C. One can easily see, with some basic averaging skills, that the announced anomaly for November is seriously exaggerated as far as warming is concerned.
It is being skewed by warming in certain parts of the planetin regions that normally lack that warming, like Siberia. There is not a lot of blue showing. Go back a year in the archives and this is what you see…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/november2022/202211_Map.png
Much more blue regions. Note the large swath around the Tropics shows no warming.
QED
I anybody aware of the origin and underlying data that supports the 100,000 year eccentricity Milankovitch cycle?
Apparently this 100,000 year cycle was ginned up out of a need to explain the glacial/interglacial process and attached to an eccentricity of the earth’s orbit variation without any data, long after Milankovitchs death who worked with the axial precession models of 41,000 years to model ancient ice ages that current scholars have said been converted to 100,000 to conform with the interglacial pattern of the quaternary. Any way it made no sense that planetary positions would cause smooth changes in eccentricity over 100,000 years. The entire theory according to this paper:
http://tinyurl.com/yc7nnsbw
links the ice age changes to changes in paleomagnetism which may be linked to solar activity instead of some undefined cycle of 3rd body gravitation influence on the earth’s orbit as it has been sold as.
Come to think of it I recall some gal in here writing about magnetic changes explaining climate change a year or so ago.
Gee maybe she actually read up on the Milankovitch cycles and found what I just found that Milankovitch didn’t find a 100,000 year cycle but instead it was connected to the 100,000 year glacial cycle of the quaternary in 1976, 30plus years after Milankovitch’s death leading up to the 1979 Charney Report.
“In consequence of the fundamental importance of the Theory for the practice of climate and ocean history, and for the history of science in general, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958), Serbian engineer and mathematician, is now recognized by many scientists as one of the great pioneers of the 20th century whose insights deeply changed geologic thinking, along with those of the German meteorologist Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880-1930) and those of the American physicist Luis Alvarez (1911-1988).
As will be recalled, Wegener (1929) proposed Continental Drift (now a corollary of Plate Tectonics, the basis of modern geology) and Alvarez and co-workers (1980) proposed the impact of a bolide from space to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous, which changed all discussion about evolution in Earth history. As is true for Milankovitchs proposition (1930, 1941),
these theories identified external forcing (from Earths mantle and outer space, respectively) as major factors in the history of the Earths surface and the living organisms thereon. As a result of these developments in the geosciences,
Earths tectonic and fluid systems dominating observable processes on Earths surface are increasingly seen in terms of response to outside forcing.”
Now, being: Publication Date: 2012-01-16
{Fathers of global warming cult, not included.}
Yep when the bring up the Milankovitch 100,000 year eccentricity cycle you should know they have their hands in your back pocket.
I looked at it, but didn’t read all of it, yet.
But roughly I would say land follows ocean.
And my “theory” or crazy idea, is glaciation periods or times larger areas polar sea ice coverage, warms the ocean. Or prevents ocean warmth from warming polar region land area.
So you have combination of warmer ocean and the Milankovitch cycle which give the peak temperatures of interglacial periods.
I will note that Holocene was weird and/or it might not really be interglacial period. Or certainly was cooler interglacial period, and is commonly said the last interglacial period had ocean with average temperature of 4 C or warmer. And it seems to me, the Holocene was 4 C or cooler, and presently we have ocean of about 3.5 C.
Which cooled slightly in Little Ice Age, and has warmed slightly since end of Little Ice Age.
In terms of solar cycle, I think they have global weather effect, wouldn’t call it, global warming or cooling effect.
There could be valid concerns about changes in global weather.
Yep the first thing to rule out is the natural cycles of warming and cooling that are seen in the ice core data that has an amplitude over 2C and up to 4c.
the openings of the northern sea passages have been passed along verbally by regional lore sparking interest in finding the passages talked about and also are documented in the geology of those regions as discovered as ice retreats. But all that is ignored and we still need to uncover more Viking structures on Greenland and for the ice to retreat at the poles to be able to test the geology under the remaining ice.
All this requires urgency to keep the psyop viable until the real objectives are met that to some is a technocracy and to Kerry Emanuel. . .good for science. . .which is close but what he really means is good for scientists. Ultimately its not good for science as the implementation is run by technocrats that want to do nothing but suppress the life blood of science via punishment for those who point out that the Emperor of the technocracy has no clothes.
The flat earth energy budget model where the colder atmosphere puts more energy into the surface than the sun shine itself is a total and utter nonsense,
People constructing this and presenting it to the public are no more scientists than rainmakers, they don’t know anything about even basic fizzix
https://i.postimg.cc/RZ98bN36/energy-budget.png
How Does Light Actually Work
https://youtu.be/bAedYtUredI?t=1509
Might be a problem for your fizzix.
But it is certainly not a problem for physics.
People constructing this and presenting it to the public are no more scientists than rainmakers.
No, Christos, you and Eben miss the total DWIR arriving at Earth surfaces is integrated over a hemisphere of directions vs. that from the sun, while more intense, is integrated over just a few degrees of directions (steradians, sr).
Ball4, don’t be a complete (unless you enjoy it).
Your DWIR is just IR emitted by the atmosphere, which is above absolute zero.
This IR warms nothing hotter than itself. Even when it is hotter than the surface (low level inversion at night), the surface still cools.
If your brain was dynamite, you wouldn’t have enough to blow your nose!
Go on, start babbling about earthen and planetary GHEs, and explain to everybody which one was responsible for four and a half billion years of cooling – either earthen or planetary!
[oh well, it takes all types]
Mike Flynn,
B4 would be a complete if he so pleases.
A complete – what is it?
Worried Wee Willy,
Fill in the blank as you wish.
Too many choices – which would be most appropriate?
You pick.
What is a complete, Mor-on Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
christos…you are right. The video is more for maintaining bad paradigms than educating people.
The interesting part of the video I watched is how electrons react to ultraviolet and mid-frequency EM but does not react to IR. That’s an extension of Planck’s finding but he could not find the reason why. He had used a presumption that UV was more powerful than lower frequency light and to get a bell curve response, he fudged the math to suit his assumption.
It is also based on Bohr’s theory of 1913. He calculated that UV is more powerful because it is the result of electrons moving over several orbital levels from higher level to ground state whereas IR is produced when the electrons moves between out orbitals at lower energies. Conversely, when electrons absorb higher energy UV they jump over several orbital levels. Furthermore, UV comes from hotter sources where electrons become more excited.
I terminated the video when they claimed Maxwell had associated light with an electron. The electron was not discovered till well after Maxwell’s equations for EM were produced. In fact, Maxwell had been dead for 20 years before the electron was discovered.
The old idea presented in the video that light has a momentum that pushes the vanes in a light sail (Crookes radiometer) is nonsense. One side of the sail is painted black and absorbs sunlight quickly warming up. The light side remains cool. That causes an imbalance in air pressure and the sail rotates.
The key is that the air pressure must be reduced enough to allow rotation. If there is no sunlight, the meter can still turn just from the radiation from a hand placed nearby. It is bs. that light pushed on the vain to turn it. It turns due to thermal effects.
Also, they claimed that Einstein revolutionized physics when all he has done is confuse issues by incorrectly redefining time to unite his theory.
Newton is still the man.
There is still a serious confusion re what light is made up of.
“Newton is still the man.”
And he argued light was a particle..
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The total solar irradiance is the maximum possible power that the Sun can deliver to a planet at Earths average distance from the Sun; basic geometry limits the actual solar energy intercepted by Earth. Only half the Earth is ever lit by the Sun at one time, which halves the total solar irradiance.
In addition, the total solar irradiance is the maximum power the Sun can deliver to a surface that is perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Because the Earth is a sphere, only areas near the equator at midday come close to being perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Everywhere else, the light comes in at an angle. The progressive decrease in the angle of solar illumination with increasing latitude reduces the average solar irradiance by an additional one-half.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page2.php
Sky Dragon cranks have yet to get that their silly flat Earth jab is silly.
Silly willy finds another link he can’t understand.
Flux can not be simply averaged. Flux is NOT energy. Energy can be averaged, but not flux. This link correctly indicates that the energy averaged over Earth’s hemisphere is half its total solar energy. After albedo, that would be 480 W/m^2, treated as energy. And that would correspond to a surface temp of 303K, if flux could be averaged.
But silly willy’s link goes on to average again! Now, they average over the entire globe, which would result in 240 W/m^2, and a corresponding temp of 255 K. That should prove that flux can NOT be averaged. You can’t have the same incoming flux providing different temperatures!
Silly willy continues to make a f00l of himself and his cult.
That’s why this is so much fun.
The matter emits EM energy.
–
It is not the matter’s job to absorb EM energy.
What matter does with the incident on the matter EM energy is to interact with it.
–
Only some part of the EM energy gets transformed into heat and gets absorbed in the matter’s inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Less energy in means less energy out.
Not sure how this would help Christos with his albedo corrector.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Making no difference at all? Yes, that’s already known. It’s called thermal equilibrium, and has no relevance to the Earth, which has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, losing more energy than it received from the Sun.
I don’t blame you for not being sure – about anything at all.
Are you still sure that the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”? Or maybe not so sure?
Surely not!
Mor-on Mike,
Less energy in means less energy out.
Harder to deny the greenhouse effect.
At least rationally speaking.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Making no difference at all? Yes, thats already known. Its called thermal equilibrium, and has no relevance to the Earth, which has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, losing more energy than it received from the Sun.
I dont blame you for not being sure about anything at all.
Are you still sure that the GHE results in not cooling, slower cooling? Or maybe not so sure?
Surely not!
Make no difference, Mºron Mike?
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Making no difference at all? Yes, thats already known. Its called thermal equilibrium, and has no relevance to the Earth, which has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, losing more energy than it received from the Sun.
I dont blame you for not being sure about anything at all.
Are you still sure that the GHE results in not cooling, slower cooling? Or maybe not so sure?
Surely not!
“thats already known,” Mõron Mike?
What’s “that”?
Keep braying”!
christos…more precisely, it is the electrons orbiting atomic nucleii in matter that interact with EM. Electrons are the only particles in matter capable of interacting with EM.
An electron is a particle with mass that carries a negative electric charge. That means it carries an electric field that can produce a magnetic field.
This is where it gets confusing. If electrons are driven around a simple series circuit containing only a resistor, the current remains the same before the resistor and after it. In other words, if you place an ammeter in the circuit before the load, or after the load, it will measure the same current.
The ammeter measure current which is the number of charges passing a point in a given time. That becomes even more confusing because apparently the charges on electrons can pass through a circuit at the speed of light whereas the electron masses move at centimetres per second. Seems that charge is passed electron to electron at a much faster rate than the electrons are moving.
It makes sense that electrons will not disappear in a circuit therefore the same number leaving a battery should be the same number entering the battery at the positive terminal. That accounts for the same current measured provided there is a one-to-one relationship between an electron and its charge. It seems that charge is conserved while being able to do work.
Getting back to the Bohr model where an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus is transitioning downward from a higher orbital level. It has to give up energy which it does by emitting a quantum of EM. That suggests it must release energy from it’s electric field and/or its magnetic field. We know from the external circuit that charge must be conserved so how can the electron transition downward, give up energy, and still maintain its charge?
If you run this by a so-called expert on the Net he/she will pull out an equation and a calculator but are unable to explain the real, physical effect.
It’s obvious that an emitted quantum of EM contains no charge, just an electric field with a magnetic field. But how are such fields emitted without the electron losing its charge? Furthermore, what is a field?
What is charge? It appears no one knows. The old electrodynamics theory was that an electron orbiting a nucleus would lose momentum and spiral into the nucleus. But why should an electron lose energy anymore than a planet loses energy orbiting the Sun?
I think any theory involving the absorp-tion/emission of EM from a mass is still speculative.
Gordon,
Richard Feynman said “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She isabsurd.”
An excellent example of weirdness is the double slit experiment. Unfortunately, quite a lot of internet information is, to put it mildly, garbage.
As far as I know, every prediction based on quantum electrodynamic theory has been verified by experiment – “The electron magnetic moment, 1.001 159 652 180 59 (13) [0.13 ppt], is determined 2.2 times more accurately than the value that stood for fourteen years.” 2023 APS publication.
Experiment agrees with theory to better than one part in a trillion. It’s hard to make better experimental equipment, but when it happens, the theoretical value keeps getting confirmed more accurately.
QED will do me until something better comes along.
Gordon, I’ll add “charge” and “electron transitions” to the growing list of concepts you don’t understand. — Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, Vectors, Watts, IR thermometers, and now Electron charge and transitions!
Here’s some more constructive criticism: Quit rambling incessantly about science. You’re making a f00l of yourself.
Weird Wee Willy,
From your link –
“Earths effective temperaturethe temperature it appears when viewed from spaceis -20 C, and it radiates energy that peaks in thermal infrared wavelengths.”
Minus twenty degrees Celsius? Are you sure? Is this meaningful?
Further on, reality rears its ugly head –
“When the flow of incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, Earth is in radiative equilibrium, and global temperature is relatively stable. Anything that increases or decreases the amount of incoming or outgoing energy disturbs Earths radiative equilibrium; global temperatures must rise or fall in response.”
As Fourier pointed out, at night the surface radiates away all the heat of the day. Plus a little internal heat – about 44 Over four and a half billion years, temperatures have obviously fallen in response.
Thanks for confirming that NASA has some weird ideas about the temperature of the Earth (-20 C), but at least acknowledge reality at times.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
One half times one half is not rocket science.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ooooooooh!
Your irrelevant gibberish machine is working again!
Get it to tell us that something else “is not rocket science”!
More On Mike,
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4
What are you braying about?
Willard, that’s good to know. Did you expend a lot of effort working that out?
I’m glad that you finally concede that 1/2 times 1/2 is 1/4, Mor-on Mike.
Do you know why it matters here?
Of course you don’t.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mo;r⊝n Mike,
“Because the Earth is a sphere”
That shows it’s not a flat Earth.
“The progressive decrease in the angle of solar illumination with increasing latitude reduces the average solar irradiance by an additional one-half”
This explains one of the two 1/2s.
Cheers.
Willard,
The Earth is not flat? I’m glad you worked that out.
Maybe you could also work out why four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the Earth cooling over that period. You said the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, so maybe the GHE made the Earth cool?
Only joking. You really have no clue, do you?
Playing dumb again, Môron Mike?
Willard,
The Earth is not flat? Im glad you worked that out.
Maybe you could also work out why four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the Earth cooling over that period. You said the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, so maybe the GHE made the Earth cool?
Only joking. You really have no clue, do you?
Swenson says:
Willard,
The Earth is not flat? Im glad you worked that out.
————————–
Wow! Just looked in here. Willard really is starting to make some progress. Congratulations Willard!!
Glad to see that Gill finally agrees that the “flat Earth” jab from Sky Dragon cranks was silly!
Willard you have to be spatially disoriented like an airline pilot in a fog to not realize that the moon rotates around the earth but its just sitting there by itself in space rotating on its internal axis. Obviously a fog is distorting your vision.
One only has to let go of ancient cosmology to get that the Moon cannot change orientation unless a force acts on it, and that this force cannot be gravity.
” to not realize that the moon rotates around the earth”
It appears that Argument from Incredulity and Argument by Assertion are all that’s left to support TMDNS.
”Because the Moon’s rotation and orbit around Earth both last a little less than a month, we always see the same craters and plateaus on the Moon’s surface while the opposite side is hidden from our sight. This tidally locked state is a consequence of gravity.”
https://eos.org/features/tidally-locked-and-loaded-with-questions#:~:text=Because%20the%20Moon's%20rotation%20and,is%20a%20consequence%20of%20gravity.
No doubt Willard you have a source that disputes that in order to provide yourself a degree or two of separations from a ‘flat earther’.
8-year-old super prodigy beats a Grandmaster!
https://youtu.be/GXExmXodNXg
You are describing my Reactor Physics teacher from Naval Nuclear Power school.
I wonder how Lt Jg Saunders is doing.
How did he go about teaching physics to reactors?
RLH, in relation to the graph I requested:
“Sorry. I seem to have failed to update it.”
So:
(1) What is preventing you from updating it?
(2) Why is it labelled November 2023 if it is not up to date?
(3) Why has it LOST data since last time you showed it?
Of course you will “find” the missing data the moment it again shows a downswing. How about you show that you are at least partially honest by fixing it now.
A,
How about you stop trolling, and concentrate your giant intellect on trying to describe the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Are you really as silly as you seem, or just pretending, hoping that people will think that you are intelligent?
It’s not working.
“Sorry. I seem to have failed to update it”
Updated now (in the same post that you obviously did not read). Now contains the median as well as the mean.
Your ONLY link was this one:
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/uah-mean-global-for-nov-2023/
Your 12-month averages go up to only mid 2022. They should be up to May 2023.
And your 5-year averages go only up to mid-2017, ie. 6.5 years ago.
Unless of course you have changed the way that EVERYONE represents dates on a temperature graph, including Mr Spencer here, with the label ‘2023’ marking the START of the year. But who would know?
And the biggest sign it is not up to date … the median for the past 12 months is +0.38, NOT a little over +0.2.
“Your 12-month averages go up to only mid 2022”
You must have missed my clear discussion about C3RM (ala VP CTRM) which uses a 12/10/8 triplet in order to get a less distorted 12 month LP filter. Ask Blinny he knows all about that. So after allowing for just that the data and graphs are all correct. Despite your misunderstanding.
“the median for the past 12 months is +0.38, NOT a little over +0.2”
A simple (though badly distorted) median may be what you claim. A C3RMedian which uses a 12/10/8 cascade will show what I show.
So the median is not the median any more. Interesting.
“Why has it LOST data since last time you showed it?”
It hasn’t.
ark…why don’t you eff-off with your stooped demands? No one is interested in your whiney comments. We reply only to offer third-party readers insight to the truth.
GR,
That is not Ark.
walter…Ant is the same as Ark. I think they are one and the same, using different nyms at their convenience.
You have to be effing kidding. I suppose you missed our big argument a couple of months ago. Damn conservatards always see things that aren’t there … like a “stolen election”.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … its likely stolen.
Conservtards? Such fun and derogatory terminology!
Like Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson?
Or g**e**r**a**n pretending to be Clint.
EM,
You wrote –
“Like Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson?”
Or some anonymous person pretending to be Entropic Man?
Only joking, but some commenters seem to be fixated on Mike Flynn, for some reason. Willard, in particular, seems obsessed with Mike Flynn, and, like you, complains bitterly that I refuse to use the pseudonym Mike Flynn!
Why should I? You have seen what happens when two people use the same pseudonym – confusion.
Maybe discussing facts, rather than personalities, would be more helpful?
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, CO2, H2O, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding. I’m sure Willard can provide suitable quotes from Mike Flynn, pointing out much the same things, if you prefer to believe him!
It’s all a bit silly, isn’t it? As Shakespeare wrote –
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;”
Just think of me as Mike Flynn, if it gives you solace.
Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn, Möron Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Heavy rainfall in California will bring heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/rccctPQ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-30-095146.png
bdg…”Gordons position is that spatial average temperatures have no meaning”.
***
I don’t know what a spatial average temperature means. If I stick a mercury thermometer in a box, it gives me the average temperature around the bulb at the bottom of the vial in which the reading is indicated. As far as averages are concerned, that is likely fairly accurate for the box in general.
You seem to think that sticking a thermometer every 100,000 km tell you something about that area.
We are talking here of about 1500 of those boxes used by NOAA to infer an average temperature anywhere on the Earth’s land surface. That’s what I am questioning. How can thermometers covering an area on average of 100,000 km tell you anything about the planet?
If there is one box located at Vancouver International Airport, where is the next box located? Maybe at the airport in Calgary, Alberta some 675 km away? Calgary is at an elevation of 1045 metres.
With global average temps, they don’t adjust for elevation or location. In California, NOAA uses only 3 stations for the entire state and thy are all located near the ocean.
Here, in the Vancouver area we have an elevation change of over 3500 feet, including the local mountains which can be accessed from the city. We have areas within the greater metropolitan area that reach 600 feet. I know there are several degrees difference between areas near the airport and in those higher regions.
There are also several degrees difference between the coast and 50 miles up the Fraser Valley. Between coastal Vancouver and 150 miles inland, temps can range from +45C in summer to -30C in winter while just +30C to -20C on the coast. It very seldom goes below 0C on the coast with the -20C only happening very occasionally when Arctic air descends. Even then, it never lasts more than a week every few years. The highs seldom exceed 25C.
None of those variations in altitude and locations are taken into account with the global average. Then there’s the Earth’s tilt and orbital position which can cause extreme variations in different parts of the planet simultaneously.
Rather than altitude and location, the global average is fudged using climate models to guess at temperatures in regions, especially on the ocean. NOAA makes no bones about it, they think it’s OK to interpolate and homogenize temperatures to arrive at quasi-temperatures in areas lacking thermometers.
There is simply no way to arrive at a believable global average without having millions of thermometers monitoring locations globally, and even then, there is a lot of guesswork. Ballpark figures simply don’t work with such variables as altitude, location and lack of proper telemetry.
“There is simply no way to arrive at a believable global average without having millions of thermometers”
Do the calculation, ignoramus.
1500 stations is sufficient.
EM,
You wrote –
“Do the calculation, ignoramus.
1500 stations is sufficient.”
Decided by consensus with 95% confidence, do you think?
A global average is a chaotic ever changing meaningless figure, albeit obtained at great expense.
What do you believe is being averaged? It’s not surface (ground temperature). It’s not air temperature, whether relative to the geoid or not. About 70% of the surface is under water, and about 10% covered by ice.
You are dreaming. Thermometers respond to temperature changes, and the temperature field which permeates the universe is chaotic, like the rest of Nature. Don’t believe me? Go off and find a place in the universe which doesn’t have a temperature!
No GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and will continue to do so, until the interior beyond the Sun’s influence is isothermal.
1500 stations would be sufficient if they were representative.
But since they are not its pretty much Dewey Wins!
Once corrected for the UHI effect and inverse-weighted for land area they are indeed representative.
How anyone believes such an error can be corrected is beyond me.
Not a tough ask.
Walter R. Hogle says:
”How anyone believes such an error can be corrected is beyond me.”
Only somebody who has never done it and thinks they can.
The Earth has spatial extent. Therefore the global average temperature is a spatial average temperature.
The spatial variability in temperature is considered when computing a global average temperature. For example, each of the 9508 temperatures in the UAH grid, which are all different, are included in the global average temperature.
Yes, UAH uses a complex model to map radiation fluxes into meaningful temperatures, assign temperatures to a grid mesh, infill the grid mesh, and spatially average the grid mesh. Despite UAH grid mesh only having 26 degrees of freedom Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy were able to successfully compute a global average temperature.
Nearly correct. They calculate a global mean temperature.
That’s what I said.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Nicely cold weather expected next week over Scandinavia and Northern Russia:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240104&daytime=night&iid=RS
The reason:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/8acc775f-ea73-40cf-a9c9-82b9032ad6b1/9b40b85d8c23f3acc8cb00fe98cb4a82/52e1643b-d295-4593-acaa-fdfcb7cc3593.jpg?fm=webp
Typical combination of a HPA (always turning CW) and an LPA (always turning CCW).
It turns cold as well as hot.
Nothing new for anyone who was in southern Spain/France/Italy, when warm air from North Africa was sucked in vigorously between an LPA west of Ireland and an HPA over Hungary, giving his car a pretty yellow coat of Saharan dust overnight.
Strange how La Nina/El Nino has effects all over the world.
Strange how people can just claim things – despite lacking both the technical skills and scientific training needed to prove their claims.
The ball-on-a-string seems to be everywhere, doesn’t it?
Yes Bindi, the ball-on-a-string (reality) is everywhere.
Yes everywhere!
”Rotational motion exists everywhere in the universe. The motion of electrons about an atom and the motion of the moon about the earth are examples of rotational motion.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15195-9_7
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582663
Bill samelessly ignores the DEFINITION of rotation at his source that totally contradicts his beliefs.
Nothing is in ”pure” rotational motion Nate. We already discussed that.
That is a SIR concept and one that is OPR.
So sorry but pure rotation is the best fit to loads of motions. And I know you understand what that means.
yes inddeed thats the only way guys like you can get the calculations done and come up with an answer. obviously the complexity of science has to be matched to the skill level of the scientist.
Example 7.6 is interesting.
“the only way guys like you can get the calculations done ”
That’s known as sour grapes.
The less answers Bill has, the more he turns to ad-homs.
Nate says:
So sorry but pure rotation is the best fit to loads of motions.
————————
Best fit for what purpose? The non-spinners have acknowledged that the brilliant mathematical reductions of Newton and others are extremely useful for analysis for a whole lot of purposes.
Each job though requires a different fit and here we have Nate just declaring a subjective ”best” on an argument that is after what is objectively happening overall.
Yes indeed we can and have repeatedly recognized that often the best fit of applying only one term in a mathematical equation will often get you the fastest and easiest correct answer to an exam question. But lets try to avoid grandiose extrapolations of that recognition without reference materials, logic, and or experiment.
What the North Atlantic Ocean went through in 2023 is beyond anything this basin has seen in recorded history.
And it remains very warm…
It has been record-warm for 275 consecutive days now (9 months), starting on March 6. And the records were SHATTERED during much of the summer.
The anomalies have been above 2.5 standard deviations since mid-April.
https://imgur.com/a/7Z9qU5Q
Strange how La Nina/El Nino has effects all over the world.
Funny how El Ninos of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.
And how La Ninas of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.
What is your estimation about the temperature value of the El Nino in 1878?
Others have claimed it is much the same as the ones more recent.
WTH is the “temperature value of an El Nino”?
Do you invent ambiguous non-scientific expressions because you have difficulty in expressing yourself precisely in English, or because you need the ambiguity as a means of wriggling yourself out of a hole later?
For starters, what is this “temperature value” relative to?
A,
You wrote –
“Funny how El Ninos of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.
And how La Ninas of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.”
Similar strength? Warmer?
You don’t seem to realise that El Nino and La Nina are just names given to historical observations of weather.
From Wikipedia –
“La Nia is a complex weather pattern that occurs every few years, as a result of variations in ocean temperatures in the equatorial band of the Pacific Ocean.”
Just an observed pattern of temperatures. You appear quite ignorant of weather descriptions, as is often the case with GHE cultists.
You don’t seem to understand that you have just made my point.
A,
You wrote
“Funny how El Ninos of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.
And how La Ninas of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.”
Similar strength? Warmer?
You dont seem to realise that El Nino and La Nina are just names given to historical observations of weather.
From Wikipedia
“La Nina is a complex weather pattern that occurs every few years, as a result of variations in ocean temperatures in the equatorial band of the Pacific Ocean.”
Just an observed pattern of temperatures. You appear quite ignorant of weather descriptions, as is often the case with GHE cultists.
When you have nothing new to add, just copy-paste your previous comment … is that how it works? Can’t be caught saying nothing now can we Mikey.
Anyway – who am I to stop you from reinforcing my point.
Please do it again …
A,
You wrote
“Funny how El Ninos of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.
And how La Ninas of similar strength are generally warmer than the last.”
Similar strength? Warmer?
You dont seem to realise that El Nino and La Nina are just names given to historical observations of weather.
From Wikipedia
“La Nina is a complex weather pattern that occurs every few years, as a result of variations in ocean temperatures in the equatorial band of the Pacific Ocean.”
Just an observed pattern of temperatures. You appear quite ignorant of weather descriptions, as is often the case with GHE cultists.
Indeed, but not retroactively..
Now is not retroactive.
Your post was at 9:29am. Nate loves to nitpick. Makes him feel smart. God only knows he really needs that.
Nope NOW is not
” record-warm for 275 consecutive days now (9 months), starting on March 6.”
Perhaps for Eskimos and Kazakhs
Question for Ark, Nate, and any other cultists willing to answer:
Why can both El Niño and HTE raise ocean surface temperatures, but atmospheric CO2 cannot?
Data from the same NOAA who retroactively adjusted the SST to show a warming from 1998 – 2012 AFTER the IPCC had declared the trend flat. Also, the NOAA who declare 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability.
Unlike Dwight Yoakam I don’t pay rent to live in this tr011’s head.
It’s a run-down place, and there’s no view, but there’s lots of space.
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
“Nothing, other than the absorbed radiation is what warms the matter to some (local) temperature, which, along with the matter properties, determines the Planck spectrum and S-B flux of the outgoing thermal radiation.”
–
Well, the planet’s dark side cools by emitting to space IR radiation. The dark side’s surface heat is the energy source of that IR EM energy emission.
There are not enough thermal energy (heat) at darkside terrestrial temperatures to support the S-B equation emission demands for the darkside respective surface temperatures.
Thus, the outgoing IR EM energy flux from the planet darkside is much-much weaker than what S-B equation predicts for those local temperatures.
–
On the planet’s solar lit side an interaction of the incident EM energy with surface’s matter occurs.
Part of the incident SW EM energy gets reflected (diffusely and specularly).
Another SW part gets instantly transformed into outgoing IR EM energy, and gets out to space.
When SW EM energy gets transformed into IR EM energy, there are always some inevitable energy losses, which dissipate as heat in the interacting surface’s matter and gets absorbed in the matter’s inner layers.
–
The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, maybe I do not understand your point. It could be something got lost in the translation. (But your English is 1000 times better than my Greek!). Or maybe I just need more ouzo….
The S/B equation works for ANY surface. All that is needed is to know the emissivity and the temperature.
Thank you, Clint.
You are completelly right:
“The S/B equation works for ANY surface. All that is needed is to know the emissivity and the temperature.”
I had to explain my point better.
–
The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is about the blackbody emission intensity of the hot bodies.
Hot bodies are the previously warmed bodies, or bodies having their own inner sourses of thermal energy.
Planets or moons are used to be confused with the hot bodies in the S-B emission sense, and it lead to the mistaken assertion:
Nothing, other than the absorbed radiation is what warms the matter to some (local) temperature, which, along with the matter properties, determines the Planck spectrum and S-B flux of the outgoing thermal radiation.
Planets and moons surfaces’ are very much insulated from the primordial heat the inner cores possesed.
Thus, planets and moons surfaces’ temperatures do not rely on the inner sources of thermal energy.
When incident on planets and moons solar flux (the solar EM energy), the solar flux interacts with surface’s matter, because the EM energy is not HEAT ITSELF!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, can you see the inconsistency between these two statements?
“The S/B equation works for ANY surface. All that is needed is to know the emissivity and the temperature.”
“The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.”
If the first one is correct, which you accepted, then the second one is incorrect.
The S-B law is for hot bodies which radiativelly pouring out because of their abundance of thermal energy.
–
For planets and moons their IR emission intensity is not reaching the S-B equation intensity demands for their respective temperatures.
–
The solar lit side emits intensive IR EM energy, because the solar flux induces on the very upper surface layer the respective temperature, but there is not thermal energy absorbtion involved.
It is not the exact S-B either.
Stefan create the T^4 relationship based on Tyndall’s data created from heating a platinum filament electrically to temperatures in the range of about 500C to 1500C. No one has ever proved S-B works below that that range.
The law applies only to blackbodies and a heated platinum filament that glows colours is an approximation of such a theorized body. In fact, anything hot enough to emit visible light should qualify. Colder bodies that emit only infrared do not quality.
You should know this, Clint, since you argue that the claimed 315 w/m^2 claimed to be emitted by ice, based on S-B, can heat anything at terrestrial temperatures.
the statement above should rad…”can’t heat anything at terrestrial temperatures”.
“Colder bodies that emit only infrared do not quality.”
Yes they do, Gordon. Why do you declare unsupportable things like this?
Are you saying ridiculous things just to seek (negative) attention?
That is what tro.lls like Clint are here for. Don’t be like him.
Christos,
You wrote –
“Planets and moons surfaces are very much insulated from the primordial heat the inner cores possesed.”
Perfect insulators do not exist, so “very much” makes no difference in the long run.
The Earth is losing primordial and radiogenic heat at a rate of about 44 TW. Slowly (very slowly) cooling.
In places, the red hot interior comes to the surface – volcanic activity, mid ocean ridges etc.
The oceans are heated from below, as are the basal areas of ice caps – even 4.5 km thick! Temperature at the base is just below 0 C, with liquid water often being present, even though surface temperature may be -85 C.
The temperature of the Earth’s surface does not depend purely on the Sun.
For information only. No offense intended.
“The temperature of the Earths surface does not depend purely on the Sun.”
–
Of course not.
How is this month looking?
.
.
.
Climate Reanalyser has December 0.048 below November with 7 days remaining.
Moyhu has December 0.010 below November with 6 days remaining.
.
.
.
CR has 2023 0.155 ahead of 2016.
Moyhu has the gap at 0.069.
A,
In my opinion, anyone who believes in global temperature precision or accuracy of 0.001 K is quite mad.
My opinion is worth what you just paid for it, of course. As is yours to me.
But hey, if you can convince some SkyDragon cultist to pay you for peering into the future, good luck to you.
Anyone who believes that the ‘mean’ is a better ‘average’ than a ‘median’ has not studied temperature statistics that much.
Do explain …
Do you understand the critical difference between mean and median and which should apply where?
“In summary, the median is often considered better than the average {mean} when dealing with skewed or non-normally distributed data, as it provides a more robust measure of central tendency”
“when data has a symmetrical distribution, we observe that the values of mean and median are approximately close.”
OTOH, the mean is often considered better than the median like when the value is used in the heat capacity equation.
Only if the underlying data is symmetrically distributed.
No, it is precisely because the data may not be symmetrically distributed that the mean is often better than the median depending on the context.
Consider the heat capacity of 5 1kg bodies with a specific heat of 1 kj/kg.C within a system. If the temperature increase is 1, 1, 1, 1, and 5 the median is 1 C while the mean is 1.8 C. Using the median you get Q = 1 kj. Using the mean you get Q = 1.8 kj. 1.8 kj is right. 1 kj is wrong. See the problem?
The facts (and statistics) say otherwise
“when data has a symmetrical distribution, we observe that the values of mean and median are approximately close”
In all cases where the distribution is asymmetrical the median is better then the mean.
So why is the C3Rmedian so odd in
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/uah-global.jpeg
RLH: In all cases where the distribution is asymmetrical the median is better then the mean.
Let me make sure I understand your argument here. The median is better in all cases even if that forces you to reject the 1st law of thermodynamics? Are you really going to stick with that argument?
“In all cases where the distribution is asymmetrical the median is better then the mean.”
Define ‘better’.
In bdgwx excellent example, it is clearly not better.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1584471
Yes and since there are so many people that want to label temperature as ”good” or ”bad” there should be a study that makes the definition of ”best” as the place where the most people live and then for those that believe mankind can efficiently change the climate. . .make that the objective for a global average temperature.
If we don’t do that then how can we possibly know what the best way to change it will be.
We don’t want to change the climate. We want to STOP it from changing. Only you guys are happy to see the climate change.
You want to stop climate from changing???
Here’s how climate typically changes from one location to another. As water=laden clouds blow in over land and meet mountains, they dump part of their loads on the ocean side and that tends to leave the other side of the mountains more arid. As the clouds proceed inland, and encounter another range or ranges, they have less moisture to dump. So, the far side of those mountains from the oceans can change to a desert climate.
Another method in Equatorial areas is this. As hot, humid air rises, it cools and releases its moisture. Then the still warm, arid air descends laterally producing deserts. That’s how the Sahara formed.
Do you know of any process that can cause that to happen today, other than the climate change just mentioned? Please don’t lay that stuff on me about a trace gas causing climates to change.
A,
You wrote –
“We dont want to change the climate. We want to STOP it from changing.”
Do you realise how insane that sounds? First, you will have to stop the weather from changing, as climate is the statistics of historical weather observations!
Let’s see you get over that hurdle
What a strange reality rejecting looney you are. Stop the weather from changing? With your Harry Potter Magic Weather Stopping Wand, I presume.
Want in one hand, pee in the other. See which fills up first.
Most of our infrastructure was designed and built when the global average temperature was 14C, with weather and sea levels to match. We’re now around 15C and rising, with our environment moving rapidly off that sweet spot.
We should aim to get back to 14C.
EM,
You wrote –
“Most of our infrastructure was designed and built when the global average temperature was 14C, with weather and sea levels to match.”
Averages are completely pointless. Surface temperatures vary between about 50 C and -80 C.
Sea levels have little to do with weather – the crust is in constant chaotic motion. The land rises and falls, and there is nothing you can do about it.
You might believe that you can Nature in her tracks, but you sound as mad as a hatter to me. Nature always wins.
“there should be a study that makes the definition of best as the place where the most people live ”
That is a very anthropocentric viewpoint. As if only humans matter.
And even if you do want to focus on humans, “where we live” is hardly the only important metric. Where we grow crops and raise livestock and catch fish and harvest lumber matters too.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”We dont want to change the climate. We want to STOP it from changing. Only you guys are happy to see the climate change.”
thats weird and unnatural. if we choose to do that thats contrary to nature. don’t you want to first determine the most desirable temperature and co2 level in the atmosphere before launching an all out war on the changing climate?
Tim Folkerts says:
”there should be a study that makes the definition of best as the place where the most people live ”
That is a very anthropocentric viewpoint. As if only humans matter.
And even if you do want to focus on humans, where we live is hardly the only important metric. Where we grow crops and raise livestock and catch fish and harvest lumber matters too.
——————————-
can’t get anymore anthropogenic than what you are suggesting Tim, people live where they do exactly that. climate change is expanding that not shrinking it.
Bill, your reply was confusing. Perhaps you can clarify.
“cant get anymore anthropogenic …”
“Anthropogenic” means caused by humans. I said “anthropocentric” which means focused on humans.
I am not sure which you actually meant.
This makes the rest increasingly unclear. It is not clear what the “that” is that people do. I could guess, but I will let you tell us if you want.
“thats weird and unnatural”
Anthropogenic climate change is — pretty much by definition — unnatural. I don’t see why it would be “weird” or “unnatural” to limit adverse effects of humanity on the world.
Tim Folkerts says:
thats weird and unnatural
Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much by definition unnatural.
——————
Pretty much by???
Humans are animals like other animals. Is what they do unnatural?
You are simply adopting a religious viewpoint here Tim of what is natural and unnatural. That’s exactly what religions do.
Great analysis.
Now do “artificial light” and “artificial intelligence.”
sure willard.
artificial light is recycled natural light.
and artificial intelligence is only hopefully recycled natural intelligence.
save nature and recycle!
Both humans and animals have shown the ability to screw up their local environment, by killing off all the prey animals, or all the trees.
Or in the case of humans, ruining the soil, water, or air.
Animals can repair the damage they do by dying off, or moving elsewhere.
Only humans have shown the ability to repair their environmental damage, not by dying off or departing, but by agreeing to regulate their own behavior.
What is the opposite of a death by natural causes, again?
Indeed Nate but the first job is to determine what change is ”screwed up”
Second job is to determine why change is occurring. There are an unlimited number of topics that Universities could work on to understand how mankind can alter his environment for the betterment of mankind. The concentration should not be on just stopping mankind from doing anything that might turn out bad.
Fact is there is no more effective way of ending the accumulation of knowledge than by doing that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585311
Too much, Christian cheer, RLH?
The mean of a sample is the average;calculated by taking the sum of all the individual values and dividing by the sample size.
Xbar = sum x/n
The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest values in the sample.
Median = max-((max-min)/2)
Which should be used and why?
For what purpose?
Statistics.
Statistics for its own sake – so, philosophy?
Too much Christmas cheer, RLH?
The mean of a sample is the average;calculated by taking the sum of all the individual values and dividing by the sample size.
Xbar = sum x/n
The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest values in the sample.
Median = max-((max-min)/2)
Duplicate?
Yes.
Affirm.
“The median is the value midway between the highest and lowest values in the sample.”
Yes. Midway along the list of numbers.
“Median = max-((max-min)/2)”
No. Not the average of the highest and lowest.
For the set of numbers 1,2,3,4,10:
median = 3
max-((max-min)/2) = 5.5
I sit corrected.
My calculation gave the midpoint of the range.(The median?)
In which case I would prefer mean to mode. The mean is influenced by the whole sample while the mode is mostly determined by the two central measurements in the sample.
RLH is not as dumb as he sounds. By choosing mode he maximises apparent uncertainty, which suits his denialist propaganda narrative.
entropic man… “Most of our infrastructure was designed and built when the global average temperature was 14C, with weather and sea levels to match. Were now around 15C and rising, with our environment moving rapidly off that sweet spot.
We should aim to get back to 14C.”
The GAT index has no resemblance to the real world.
WH: The GAT index has no resemblance to the real world.
The GAT alone is enough to discriminate between glacial (6-8 C) and interglacial (13-15 C) eras.
Walter
If GAT is not an appropriate measure of the energy content of the climate system, what alternative would you recommend and how would you measure it?
Would you prefer Roger Pielke’s suggestion that the best measure of the increasing energy content of the system is ocean heat content? That’s where 91% of the accumulating energy ends up.
EM,
You wrote –
“If GAT is not an appropriate measure of the energy content of the climate system, what alternative would you recommend and how would you measure it?”
There is no “energy content of the climate system”.
Or maybe you believe you can measure the energy content of (according to the wondrous bur sometimes erroneous and misleading Wikipedia) “Earth’s climate system is a complex system with five interacting components: the atmosphere (air), the hydrosphere (water), the cryosphere (ice and permafrost), the lithosphere (earth’s upper rocky layer) and the biosphere (living things).”
A couple of items that Wikipedia left out are the rest of the Earth – and the Sun, Moon etc.
The Earth has cooled, EM, and continues to do so, losing energy at the rate of about 44 TW.
Measurebate until you are blue in the face – nothing will change. Can you demonstrate otherwise? No?
I thought not.
bdgwx,
Did those ‘glacial’ and ‘interglacial’ eras even have thermometers?
Walter, thermometers weren’t invented the 1600s.
so obviously the answer is no
“Walter, thermometers werent invented the 1600s.”
Which emphasizes the sheer absurdity of trying to come up with a ‘global average temperature’ for the distant past.
Not really.
By that logic ice wasn’t there before there were thermometers.
Walter, you are moving the goal post. First, it was the GAT does not resemble the real world. Now it is the GAT is too difficult to determine. Is there anything that will convince you that the GAT is useful, meaningful, and determinable?
“Walter, you are moving the goal post. First, it was the GAT does not resemble the real world. Now it is the GAT is too difficult to determine. Is there anything that will convince you that the GAT is useful, meaningful, and determinable?”
I am not moving the goalpost. With respect to past eras without no thermometers, it is even more absurd than it already is to attempt to calculate average temperature for those periods. You have no consistent measurements to begin. Why do you think that GAT is “useful, meaningful, and determinable”?
Notable and embarrassing grammatical errors in my post; allow me to correct:
I am not moving the goalpost. With respect to past eras without thermometers, it is even more absurd than it already is to attempt to calculate the average temperature for those periods. You have no consistent measurements to begin with. Why do you think that GAT is ‘useful, meaningful, and determinable’?”
It is determinable because many groups have done it using a variety of methods. I suspect even you could constrain the GAT using first principle thinking alone. It is meaningful because there is a relationship between temperature and energy and constrains the behavior and state of the climate system. It is useful because it tells if the climate system is warming or cooling, can be compared to determine which times were warmer and cooler, and provides a metric for hypothesis testing. It can even be used to make comparisons between planets which is why NASA provides it on their planetary fact sheets.
And don’t hear what isn’t being said. It is not being said that determining the GAT is easy. It’s not as I’m sure Dr. Spencer would attest. It’s not being said that the GAT is the be-all-end-all metric. It’s not.
Willard says:
”By that logic ice wasnt there before there were thermometers.”
we know that less summer ice was there earlier in the holocene via geology layers on ancient seashores and ocean bottoms making al gore either a liar or ignorant.
bdgwx,
Yes simplistically, temperature is linearly linked to energy content. Nevertheless, the intricate and chaotic dynamics of the planet’s climate extend far beyond the simplicity of a linear equation, as I’ve previously discussed with you. The weather departs from a crucial assumption of the Central Limit Theorem: each measurement is neither identical nor independent in nature, introducing non-random uncertainty. The sample means in the GAT will approximate a Gaussian distribution only due to the extensive number of averagesthousands and thousands of them. They still don’t represent the real world.
The central limit theorem has nothing to do with it. An average can be computed from any sample regardless of whether the sample is of the same value or not. In fact, it is precisely because the sample contains different values that the average is often useful. And if the sample is of real world values then the average of that sample indisputably and unequivocally represents the real world.
BTW…even a single spot temperature measurement from an official reporting station is actually an average whether you realized it or not. Even the older LiGs had a time constant that effectively makes it behave as if it were averaging. The point…if you don’t like the concept of averaging then you aren’t going to be satisfied with the concept of a temperature in general.
Gill distrusts proxies until he does not, and Walter somehow forgets that the Auditor dismisses the validity of proxies by appealing to the Central Limit Theorem.
The ways contrarians deny the validity climate indicators need not be consistent.
“Nevertheless, the intricate and chaotic dynamics of the planets climate extend far beyond the simplicity of a linear equation, as Ive previously discussed with you.”
Walter, though we have chaotic dynamics, one should not assume that everything becomes unknowable.
The chaos means that the distribution of added heat from the increased GHE is more difficult to predict. IOW how regional climates change and glacial melt, etc.
But the average gain in thermal energy of the Earth system is relatively more predictable.
Well said Nate.
Walter, based on the context from our conversation from WUWT I think part of the point you’re making is that averages don’t tell us the whole story. Everyone is in full agreement with that. That doesn’t mean that an average cannot be a descriptive metric and can tell us part of the story. So while the GAT cannot tell us the part of the story regarding the spatial distribution of temperatures it can tell us the part of the story regarding the warming/cooling tendency of the planet as a whole. That doesn’t mean that the spatial distribution isn’t an important aspect. It is.
Walter,
In addition another advantage averages provide is the reduced uncertainty. For example, per Christy et al. 2003 the uncertainty on spot satellite measurements is on the order of +/- 1 C while the global average is on the order of +/- 0.2 C. This is a result of the uncertainty scaling with 1/sqrt(N) where N is the degrees of freedom of the sample which for the UAH grid is 26.
And as Nate mentioned above this concept applies to predictions as well. A prediction of an average of a large spatial and temporal domain is going to have less uncertainty than a prediction for a specific time and location. This makes null hypothesis testing easier since you get lower p values.
“The central limit theorem has nothing to do with it. An average can be computed from any sample regardless of whether the sample is of the same value or not. In fact, it is precisely because the sample contains different values that the average is often useful. And if the sample is of real world values then the average of that sample indisputably and unequivocally represents the real world.
BTWeven a single spot temperature measurement from an official reporting station is actually an average whether you realized it or not. Even the older LiGs had a time constant that effectively makes it behave as if it were averaging. The pointif you dont like the concept of averaging then you arent going to be satisfied with the concept of a temperature in general.”
bingbongwaxmonkey,
As anticipated, your interpretation continues to fall short. My contention does not oppose the concept of averaging per se but challenges its inappropriate application to diverse and non-identical measurements across various locations and contexts. The loss of accuracy in the average, as illustrated with my Denver example, underscores the egregious violation of the Central Limit Theorem assumption when attempting to calculate a global average temperature.
Nate,
Your two paragraphs appear to contradict each other in the central point I’m arguing:
‘The chaos means that the distribution of added heat from the increased GHE is more difficult to predict. IOW how regional climates change and glacial melt, etc.’
‘But the average gain in thermal energy of the Earth system is relatively more predictable.’
Walter,
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. It is precisely because some samples have variance that the average is useful. This is true of other metrics like min, max, standard deviation, and any other computation that can be done on a sample. In other words, if the sample is not diverse and contains identical measurements appearing repeatedly then there would be no point in computing the average.
Also, I think you may be misunderstanding what the CTL says. What the CTL says is that taking the average of randomly selected samples repeatedly will itself create a sample that has a tendency to fall into a normal distribution regardless of the distribution of the population. It has nothing to do with the question of whether a GAT itself is determinable. It does, however, suggest that the uncertainty of the GAT will be normal (as opposed to triangular, rectangular, etc.) regardless of the distribution of the spot temperatures which may or may not be useful depending on what you do with that uncertainty.
Walter,
Let me give you a real world case where the CTL provides a useful insight into temperatures.
ASOS station observations are themselves averages. Specifically each reported observation is actually the average of 30 instantaneous measurements taken 10 s apart. So Mr = sum(Mi, i: 1 to 30) / 30 where Mr is reported measurement and Mi is the instantaneous measurement. What the CTL says is that Mr will tend to form a normal distribution around the true 5-minute average regardless of the exact timing of the individual Mi values. It should come as no surprise that NOAA uses 30 samples for the average since the CTL is said hold at 30 and above. This is a very powerful fact since it says all we need to do is take instantaneous readings every 10 s to approximate the true 5-minute average.
The same concept holds for spatial averages as well. Randomly selecting but a few spot temperature measurements from the entire globe and averaging them is enough to approximate the true global average temperature with a predictable and reasonable uncertainty envelope that is itself normal.
Walter,
There is nothing contradictory with what Nate said. It is a fact. The exact nature of the spatial temperature changes (and thus heat uptake distribution) is harder to predict than the average overall change (and thus overall heat uptake).
An example of this in action is my model (which I occasionally post here) for predicting UAH TLT values. The RMSD (root mean square difference) between my prediction and what UAH actually reports for the next month is 0.26 C for the global average. But the RMSD of any specific value from the 9508 values in the grid is much higher. In fact, uncertainties are so high that I don’t even attempt it.
bingbongwaxmonkey,
“What youre saying doesnt make sense. It is precisely because some samples have variance that the average is useful. This is true of other metrics like min, max, standard deviation, and any other computation that can be done on a sample. In other words, if the sample is not diverse and contains identical measurements appearing repeatedly then there would be no point in computing the average.”
I’m not referring to numerical diversity. In my Denver example, the violation of the Central Limit Theorem (in the context of the real world; I should’ve been clearer) becomes evident when you consider two days with the same average temperature but very different recorded max and min temperatures. One day might have experienced a rapid temperature rise in the afternoon, while the other day could have had a more gradual increase. Perhaps one day had higher variability with temperature fluctuations, while the other day maintained a more stable temperature throughout. Additionally, there might have been a high snow cover depth at the station at the time the minimum was recorded. According to the CLT, one might have expected that the temperature patterns on these two days were the same.
“It does, however, suggest that the uncertainty of the GAT will be normal.”
I addressed that above when I mentioned that the Gaussian distribution arises solely due to the large number of sample means in consideration. However, the numbers themselves still lack real-world meaning.
“The same concept holds for spatial averages as well. Randomly selecting but a few spot temperature measurements from the entire globe and averaging them is enough to approximate the true global average temperature with a predictable and reasonable uncertainty envelope that is itself normal.”
No, a more extreme departure from the CLT in the real-world context occurs when attempting to spatially average. Every measurement taken at different locations has its own unique context with external, non-random influences such as topography, coastal effects, snow cover and albedo variations, urban heat island, and more. The list is virtually infinite.
WH: According to the CLT, one might have expected that the temperature patterns on these two days were the same.
The CLT says no such thing.
WH: However, the numbers themselves still lack real-world meaning.
I doubt you’re conviction of that belief. Afterall, that is going to force you into the position of saying any temperature observation lacks real-world meaning since they’re all averages.
WH: Every measurement taken at different locations has its own unique context
Yep. It’s the same with any observation whether it be pressure, humidity, salinity, pH, density, etc. Yet all can and are spatially averaged without issue.
Willard says:
Gill distrusts proxies until he does not, and Walter somehow forgets that the Auditor dismisses the validity of proxies by appealing to the Central Limit Theorem.
The ways contrarians deny the validity climate indicators need not be consistent.
——————-
Obviously you have little experience with proxies. Proxies like tree rings thickness can vary by temperature, sunlight availability, nutrient availability, and water availability. So you find a fat tree ring. Do you just assume that means a warmer temperature?
Or do you listen to the employee scientist of a corporation like a University whose main interest is in forcing you to give them more money? Private enterprise has to do that with kid gloves as you can choose not to buy. Clearly the latter is more respectable as you won’t end up in debtors prison if you refuse to pay.
Dilbert measuring earth temperature
https://youtu.be/kdxzqHZypTk?t=5620
christos…”It is not the matters job to absorb EM energy.
What matter does with the incident on the matter EM energy is to interact with it”.
***
Agreed. Matter does not absorb all of the EM it receives, it absorbs only the frequencies of light that resonates with the electrons in the element affected by the EM.
EM energy has a very broad range of frequencies. Electrons in matter, especially in 1 element, like say copper, or silicon, only absorb a fw frequencies at a time, epending on the EM intenity of the source. Therefore if a full range of light frequencies strikes one element, only a few of the EM frequencies are absorbed, the rest being reflected.
Having said that, no one really knows how this works.
clint…”Gordon, Ill add charge and electron transitions to the growing list of concepts you dont understand. Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, Vectors, Watts, IR thermometers, and now Electron charge and transitions!”
***
Clint the masochist seems to enjoy having his butt kicked. Clint can only mouth off about my lack of understanding but he/she cannot explain what is wrong with my explanations.
Here are some of Clint’s insights…
1)Clint says…heat is not energy, it is a measure of the transfer of energy. Since the energy being transferred is heat, then heat is a measure of heat, in Clint’s limited understanding of science.
2)Clint says…flux is not energy, according to Clint it is an undefined concept he blows out of his butt.
3)Clint believes electrons, which are negatively charged particles, flow from positive to negative. In a vacuum tube, electrons are boiled off a tungsten filament and drawn through a vacuum to a high positive charge on the plate, a cylindrical element surrounding the filament. According to Clint, there is some mysterious positive charge flowing from the plate to the filament/cathode.
BTW…we know it is electrons flowing cathode (-ve) to anode (+ve). Vacuum tubes are evacuated because air molecules interfere with electron flow and if any air gets into the tube, electrons collide with the molecules and that interferes with the current flow.
A vacuum tube called a triode, has a mesh wire cylinder (grid) between the cathode and anode and by applying a negative charge to the grid we can control the electron current flow. In a triode, if the tube leaks (becomes gassy), the gas molecules plug the grid and block electron flow.
However, this is way beyond Clint’s level of understanding, he just likes to open his mouth and let his belly rumble.
4)Clint says…entropy is a measure of disorder. The equation for entropy as defined by Clausius, who invented entropy, is stated as S = integral dq/T. No reference to disorder, only heat, dq.
4)Clint says…an IR thermometer measures heat directly. An IR thermometer detects infrared frequencies from a source. It cannot detect heat directly.
5)Clint thinks a change in direction of a vector constitutes an acceleration. Yet I can be represented by a vector as I run an oval track. I can keep my velocity constant on the straight portions and the curves, where the vector must change direction and there is no acceleration present. Even when the vector changes 180 degrees in direction between straight sides of the track, acceleration does not change if I run at a constant velocity.
6)Clint thinks a watt can measure anything from temperature to a massless entity like electromagnetic energy. The watt is a unit of mechanical energy that relates the work down to a time period over which the work in done. There are 746 watts in 1 horsepower and I seriously doubt that anyone would be so stoopid as to measure EM in HP.
Well…Clint is that stoopid.
Clint does not get it that heat stated in units of the watt is not a measure of heat per se but a measure of the amount of work that can be done to produce a quantity of heat. Clausius pointed this out some 180 years ago but Clint has not caught up yet.
7)Even though Neils Bohr went to a great deal of trouble explaining the concept of electron transitions in atoms, Clint seems to be one of the few naysayers who fail to grasp the concept. I have been meaning to ask him if he thinks the Earth is flat.
Clint thinks there is a magical box in an atom or molecule that generates and absorbs EM.
Gordon,
> “Having said that, no one really knows how this works.”
–
What it is that emits the solar spectrum frequencies, when scientists say sun consists mostly
from hydrogen (H) and helium (He) ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos…at the extreme temperatures found in the Sun, hydrogen and helium could not exist as atoms. Apparently the electrons are boiled off and in the case of hydrogen that should mean it cannot exist as an atom. Therefore the Sun would appear to consist of mainly free electrons and protons.
I don’t know about helium but it too would have trouble holding on to its electrons and keeping its nucleus of protons and neutrons together.
The Sun is considered to be a gas plasma and we cannot consider it as a normal hydrogen/helium gas as we would at the surface of the Earth. A plasma is considered to be a gas in which the electrons are ripped from the atom. If you rip electrons from a hydrogen atom, you are left with protons.
I don’t pretend to understand any of this. The EM energy from the Sun is likely coming from sources other than electron transitions we normally understand in atoms..
https://www.psfc.mit.edu/vision/what_is_plasma
christos…nuclear fusion is claimed to be the method by which the Sun produces energy. It makes no sense to me. They claim that protons fuse together and release energy but no one seems to be able to explain how that works. For one, huge amounts of heat are involved to begin with so which comes first?
How does the process begin? Seems no one knows because they cannot get such a fusion reactions to sustain here on Earth. I think there is a lot of theory that is just theory. The entire theory behind sub-atomic particles is suspect. More theory than reality.
It’s the same with the theory behind black holes and the Big Bang. One theory of black holes is that a star like our Sun runs out of fuel, causing it to collapse in on itself. As it collapses, apparently there is nothing left but neutrons and they fuse together to produce a very dense body.
Makes no sense either. Why should neutrons fuse together? They have no charge, so why should they be attracted to each other? Some scientific theory is science-fiction.
The Big Bang is even more fictitious. It is based on the idea that a huge amount of mass can come from nothing but empty space.
CO2 check-in:
1/ The final 2023 weekly Keeling data is out: https://imgur.com/a/29EXNQp
2/ Atmospheric CO2 peaked at 424.64 parts per million (ppm) in May 2023.
3/ Following a natural dip from seasonal plant and tree growth, it was back at 421.86 ppm as of December 30.
4/ Key Takeaway:
If a 50% increase in CO2 (140 ppmv) caused an increase of 1 deg. C over 40 years, that means the total effect from all CO2 is 3 deg. C. Where is the other 30 deg. C coming from? Hint: It is not coming from beef production.
Please re-state your question; in English this time.
A,
Seems clear enough to me. What part of the question is beyond your understanding?
He’s even given you a hint!
Why do you dodge the question? CO2 is at most 10% of the greenhouse effect based on measured data. It could be less depending on the accuracy of the compensation for the UHI effect. UAH satellite data seems to indicate that CO2 has only a minor effect. RSS seems to back up the fact that surface data sets show more warming than has actually occurred.
Happy New 2024 year to you Tim!
Happy New 2024 year to you Arkady!
Happy New 2024 year to you Roy!
To you Gordon, to you gbaikie, to you Willard, to you Clint, to you Swenson, to you Nate, to you Stephen, to you Ireneusz, to you DREMT, to you Bindidon, to you Ball4, to you Tysson, to you Ent, to you all, to you UNIVERSE!!!
Thank you, Willard, for inviting me to participate in this wonderfull BLOG!!!
–
Christos
Happy New Year, Christos!
Have a good one, Christos. Good having you here as a voice of reason.
“If a 50% increase in CO2 (140 ppmv) caused an increase of 1 deg. C over 40 years, that means the total effect from all CO2 is 3 deg. C.”
How are you calculating that? Show your work, please.
Silly Nate! A 50% increase means that one third of CO2 is new and two thirds is existing. I will let you figure it out as math lesson. Have fun!
I have a better question for my friend Nate. Are you a denier? Do you deny that the period between approximately 1960 to 1990 was a cool period on earth during a rapid increase in CO2?
Sorry that is not how it works, Tim.
I thought you understood about the logarithmic dependence of the CO2 forcing.
And that explains why the different climate models have a variation of over 300% after being properly calibrated for the UHI.
A,
You wrote –
“Key Takeaway:
CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmospheres CO2 content by 50% in less than 200 years.”
Complete nonsense. CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other constituents like H2O, results in less sunlight reaching the surface.
If you believe that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter, you are quite mad, and refusing to accept reality.
Additionally, the Earth has demonstrably cooled since its surface was molten.
Off you go now, and rejoin the fairies you were away with.
“Complete nonsense. CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other constituents like H2O, results in less sunlight reaching the surface.”
Negligibly so, the atmosphere is relatively transparent to sunshine, but much less so for IR exiting the Earth, as Tyndall discovered and explained 150 y ago.
Not sure why Swenson always feels the need ignore the effects that contradict his narrative.
Is he trying to deceive people?
Nate says:
”Negligibly so, the atmosphere is relatively transparent to sunshine, but much less so for IR exiting the Earth, as Tyndall discovered and explained 150 y ago.”
The atmosphere abso-rbs or reflects 53% of sunlight Nate and you call that negligible?????
No wonder your viewpoint is so screwed up you believe everything your daddy tells you without question.
‘reflected’ not relevant to this discussion.
Maybe negligible is wrong word. The point is that the abs.orbed portion of the solar spectrum is smaller than the abs.orbed portion of emitted IR spectrum.
And the abs.orbed part of the solar still warms the Earth.
Indeed reflected solar according to Stefan and Boltzmann should not be discarded thus it is relevant.
As I point out above not being a blackbody does not mean warming is eliminated by non-blackbody if its temperature is actually higher than the mean of all its spectral lines.
There are plenty of tests that demonstrate this starting with the emissivity/abso-r-ption factor in the SB equation.
Check this discussion out. I even mention where you actually support the discourse in a very selective manner.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585107
Nate, you wrote –
“”Complete nonsense. CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other constituents like H2O, results in less sunlight reaching the surface.”
Negligibly so, the atmosphere is relatively transparent to sunshine, but much less so for IR exiting the Earth, as Tyndall discovered and explained 150 y ago.
Not sure why Swenson always feels the need ignore the effects that contradict his narrative.
Is he trying to deceive? ”
Then you wrote –
“Maybe negligible is wrong word. The point is that the abs.orbed portion of the solar spectrum is smaller than the abs.orbed portion of emitted IR spectrum.”
The point is that it makes no difference at all. At night, the temperature falls, and as Fourier said, all of the heat of the day is lost to outer space. That’s why the surface cools – more energy out than in.
No deception – that’s just an Insinuation by you, trying to avoid reality.
Maybe you could offer another nutty attempt at describing the effects of the mythical GHE – does it heat, cool, or have no effect? Not willing to even try?
I thought so.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“all of the heat of the day is lost to outer space”
Perhaps you could explain why 2023 was the warmest year in satellite record:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/
Has the core of the Earth started to melt a little more?
How many CO2 sensors do they employ throughout the planet to make these measurements, especially to two decimal points?
Where is the correlation between CO2 levels and climate change?
If we compare
https://i.postimg.cc/vBKGq3JH/nino34-Mon311223.png
with
https://i.postimg.cc/bNcZqw5Y/nino34-Mon190623.png
then we can see how much the tangential slopes differ for next April in these two forecasts, and that it would be almost a miracle if El Nino lasted longer in 2024.
No wonder for me when I look at how ENSO developed after 2012.
How do you get tangent lines to non-continuous curves?
How is it possible to be so uneducated and yet say so much nonsense all over this blog?
Monthly UhnamUlies
Oh the sheer silliness…
” Anyone who believes that the ‘mean’ is a better ‘average’ than a ‘median’ has not studied temperature statistics that much. ”
Typical, ideology-based statement, to which I reply:
” Anyone who claims that the ‘median’ is a better ‘average’ than a ‘mean’ never had the technical skills needed to engineer a software really comparing them. ”
Here is such a comparison (with a Dec 2023 data update of what I made in Jul 2021):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oEI183aJd9U3BnIRpWgySiainCbnhjTt/view
*
More about it on the next Spencer thread.
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
So Blinny does not think that statisticians know anything about ‘averages’.
“The mean is considered the best measure of central tendency to use if the data distribution is continuous and symmetrical“
If the distribution is symmetrical (ie. non-skewed) then the mean and median are IDENTICAL.
So in what sense is the mean considered better than another number which is equal to it?
.
.
.
You have a habit of quoting unspecified sources. Why is that?
Perhaps in future you should try quoting reputable sources that you are not embarrassed to name. That is, not “Skill Academy”. Interesting that you refer to this online coaching forum as “statisticians”.
Blindsley H00d
Again you intentionally distort what I wrote.
I never wrote anything about statisticians, let alone would I doubt their theoretical results.
I wrote that YOU, Blindsley H00d, never would be able to show us that medians are a better way than means to obtain temperature averages: simply because YOU lack the technical skills needed to engineer a software really comparing them.
All what you were able to do in 2021 was a trivial schoolboy evaluation of the USCRN data:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg
which did not tell us anything about how mean, median and 24h average really compare when looking at the USCRN data.
You were so busy with proudly showing us your beautiful percentile graph that you failed to show the comparison’s essentials:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
Nor were you able to show us how USCRN temperature measurement are distributed, depending on the averaging method chosen:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P8JNpMRpO3K_UMJ3mDgvw_5CFC92GjVV/view
On these two graphs, anyone – except you, of course – can see not only
– how tiny the differences are between median, mean and 24h average
but also
– that these differences are not constant but depend on specific, apparently temporal factors.
*
And above all, you were never able to explain us why the differences between
(1) 24h average and mean
and
(2) 24h average and median
depend of the latitude of the USCRN stations, as I prove two years ago with a comparison of the station
26563 60.7237 -150.4484 86.0 AK_Kenai_29_ENE
with the station
92826 25.8996 -81.3183 1.2 FL_Everglades_City_5_NE
*
Still today you keep unable to admit that a comparison of medians and means therefore can succeed if and only if it is preceded by a removal of their biased spatial and temporal dependencies.
*
But… I know that all what I show here is useless because you are an opinionated and dishonest person who never admits being wrong.
You will endlessly continue to spout your utter lies a la
” So Blinny does not think that statisticians know anything about ‘averages’. ”
just like your friend in global warming denŷal Robertson endlessly repeats his nonsensical lies about the famous ‘1500 NOAA stations worldwide’.
I wouldn’t wonder if one day you butt-kiss Robertson & his gang by finally admitting the absence of any lunar spin.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/uah-global.jpeg
And again, Blindsley H00d shows
– his inability to contradict real work like in
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oEI183aJd9U3BnIRpWgySiainCbnhjTt/view
and
– his desperate need to post once more some trivial schoolboy stuff instead, lacking even a description of what he understands in his graph under ‘median’.
*
Furthermore, in his UAH example, he does not show how to compare mean, median, and average when creating an annual time series from UAH’s monthly anomalies.
Here is such a comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10CHDf0ungpbpnar3KMKFL4UWyIJVclvS/view
Linear trends in C / decade for the three methods to obtain yearly values out of 12 monthly anomalies:
– mean i.e. (min+max)/2: 0.145 +- 0.02
– median: 0.135 +- 0.02
– average of the 12 months: 0.142 +- 0.02
*
It is of no help to simply pick up those statements out of text books which best fit the personal narrative.
Only a professional statistician can tell us here, when looking at the examples discussed,
– which of the three methods is mathematically the most correct one and why;
– why the median-based yearly series is, during the first half of the monthly time series, higher than the other two, what of course led to its lowest trend.
“real work” as in Excel it seems. And why a 3rd order ‘fit’?
“lacking even a description”
They are, unsurprisingly, a C3RMedian with the least distortion possible.
I repeat what I wrote above:
” Furthermore, in his UAH example, he does not show how to compare mean, median, and average when creating an annual time series from UAHs monthly anomalies. ”
Your C3RMedian is a pointless exercise, as it is by no means what you should deliver, exactly like your percentile exercise was no answer at all to what I did.
*
” ‘real work’ as in Excel it seems. ”
Firstly, I use spreadsheet calculators only to present the data I generated – data that you by the way were never able to generate.
Don’t try to discredit spreadsheet calculators, RLH, because you ridicule yourself and lose any credibility when doing that.
Excel is used everywhere, in many places with statistics packages like ARIMA, ToolPak, Analyse-it.
*
” And why a 3rd order ‘fit’? ”
Solely this question is enough to explain your lack of experience.
Anyone uses higher order polynomials with a degree best fitting their source’s complexity.
But you dare to use linear trends (!!!) in WoodForTrees to show ‘cooling since 2016’ – forgotten, Blindsley H00d?
“Your C3RMedian is a pointless exercise”
So VP does not know what he was taking about.
Just as statisticians do not know their subject either.
Are you saying you don’t trust linear trends now as well. That’s one for the history books.
And… by the way, Blindsley H00d
Come back to us here when you will have shown your ability to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid like I do, e.g. by generating an evenly distributed subset out of the grid, showing the grid’s degree of redundancy:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rMxeEI3cRKJAOIZEBa_nodhZ3HVPnFF5/view
1024 cells, i.e. ~ 11% of the grid, compared to the full set of 9504 cells.
Allez-y, Blindsley H00d – au travail!
Why would I mistrust what Roy and his team have done already?
What does comparing two sets of UAH grid cells have to do with this alleged ‘mistrust of Roy and his team’ that you are accusing me of?
Nothing. Blindsley H00d needed once more to blow out a cloud of polemical smoke to distract from his own lack of technical skill.
nate…”[GR]Colder bodies that emit only infrared do not quality.
[Nate]Yes they do, Gordon. Why do you declare unsupportable things like this?”
***
S-B is based on blackbody theory. A body that emits purely IR is not a blackbody.
The experiment by Tyndall, where a platinum filament wire was electrically heated till it glowed colours, can be considered a blackbody. All practical blackbodies we know of like stars, are so hot they emit colours. They also emit IR, but if they emitted only IR they would not glow and could not be constituted as a blackbody.
Blackbody theory, as proposed by Kircheoff, circa 1850, was not very specific and partly wrong. He talked only of a body in thermal equilibrium with another body but he claimed a BB could absorb all frequencies of EM and emit all frequencies of EM. That is wrong since it suggests the Sun emits all frequencies of EM and absorbs all frequencies of EM.
It does not. That would contradict the 2nd law by allowed heat to be transferred from a cooler body like the Earth to the Sun so as to raise its temperature. That would be nonsense.
The truth is this. When Kircheoff proposed BB theory he knew nothing about how EM is generated and absorbed by electrons in atoms. BB theory should be discarded, it serves no useful purpose.
Kirchhoff did specify thermal equilibrium, Gordon, so additional modern-day research has shown non-equilibrium states also follow Kirchhoff.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“BB theory should be discarded, it serves no useful purpose.”
This definitely goes in the new episode of
‘Science deniers say the darndest things!’
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Happy New Year!
Love you all.
Do not ever change.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Do not ever change.”
Spoken like a true fanatic – your mind remains firmly closed.
Scientists who become aware of new facts change their views. Cultists just keep on denying reality, and continue to believe in phlogiston, caloric, and the GHE. Nothing will ever change their minds.
You will never change your mind, will you?
Mike Flynn,
Expressing a wish is not the same thing as making a factual claim.
Keep braying!
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Do not ever change.”
Spoken like a true fanatic your mind remains firmly closed.
Scientists who become aware of new facts change their views. Cultists just keep on denying reality, and continue to believe in phlogiston, caloric, and the GHE. Nothing will ever change their minds.
You will never change your mind, will you?
You can change sock puppets all you want, Mike. You could even change opinions as you change underwear – every year or so.
You still be braying like you are, and like you were ten years ago.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Do not ever change.”
Spoken like a true fanatic your mind remains firmly closed.
Scientists who become aware of new facts change their views. Cultists just keep on denying reality, and continue to believe in phlogiston, caloric, and the GHE. Nothing will ever change their minds.
You will never change your mind, will you?
Mike Flynn,
Please copy-paste your silly and utterly irrelevant jabs once more.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Do not ever change.”
Spoken like a true fanatic your mind remains firmly closed.
Scientists who become aware of new facts change their views. Cultists just keep on denying reality, and continue to believe in phlogiston, caloric, and the GHE. Nothing will ever change their minds.
You will never change your mind, will you?
Very good, Mike.
Now do it with your tablet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[clint]The S/B equation works for ANY surface. All that is needed is to know the emissivity and the temperature.
[Christos]The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is about the blackbody emission intensity of the hot bodies.
***
Christos is right, Clint is wrong…as usual. S-B has no application to ice. Why people continue to apply it incorrectly is the question.
Define “hot”. At which temperature does S-B stop working? 5000K?
2000K? 1200K? 948K?
What (in your understanding of science) is the correct equation for thermal radiation from ice?
sb never works tim. it only works for imaginary black bodies with perfect spectral abso-r-ption curves. if you look at solar spectra there are shortwave spectral lines that exceed the blackbody curve making it a mistake to claim that a given wattage of sunlight can only warm something to a set temperature. oxygen and nitrogen in the thermosphere get very hot while abso-rbing very few watts/m2.
one has to just ignore that to arrive at your idea of how the ghe has to work.
Splendid nuance.
And Newton’s laws only work for bodies with negligible volumes.
Whavcky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“And Newtons laws only work for bodies with negligible volumes.”
Are you quite mad, or just trolling?
Möron Mike,
Why are you such a möron?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“And Newtons laws only work for bodies with negligible volumes.”
Are you quite mad, or just trolling?
Mike Flynn,
You have not read what Gill wrote, have you?
Willard is apparently complaining about my statement that an object in rotation around an external axis has greater angular momentum than the angular momentum of a point of the same mass.
I guess he missed out on the inference that the moon isn’t a blackhole the size of a point.
Gill is trying really hard to suggest that Newton’s Laws of Motion do not apply to the Moon.
Is it safe to assume you think the Ideal Gas Law is useless since no gas is truly ideal?
Is it safe to assume you think the 2LOT is useless since no system is truly isolated?
Is it safe to assume you think Newton’s law of universal gravitation is useless since no body is truly spherical or point-like?
Who said anything about these SIRs being useless? The trick is in properly applying them in terms of materiality. When the materiality is determined to be absolute (i.e. as one poster said it was to stop all anthropogenic change) thats purely political in nature in addition to it being anti-human.
When one completely fails at all experiments to show a gas cooler than the heated and radiating surface that warms a gas which in turn fails to warm the heated and radiated surface, that should nudge anybody who isn’t a technocrat sycophant into a bit of skepticism.
Perhaps you can point to some Stefan Boltzmann experiments that demonstrate the effect you are talking about. But that seems highly unlikely as this debate has been going on for years without anybody ending the debate by doing just that.
But what we get instead is an argument that a mean 340.25w/m2 solar wattage reaching the surface that isn’t blackbody smooth but instead blackbody averaged by science shouldn’t be able to warm anything to more than 278.5K
https://images.app.goo.gl/bKThTpCQtWgSRFEY6
If I take this image and estimate how much higher the bluesky peak above the blackbody curve is I get 18% which equals 404watts of heating potential (342 times 1.18) this shouldn’t be shocking as Nate and others always argue that warming can occur from the sun above and beyond its mean value, they just don’t attach it to solar constant variation but instead CO2 acting as insulation. . .which has never been established.
But of course solar constant variation is eliminated in the dominate technocrat narrative because if the sun hit 1380w/m2 (which is the Woods Hole and U of Colorado numbers on their websites) that would entail the earth intercepting a mean 345w/m2 versus the 340.25 from the 1361w/m2 solar constant held by UCAR, Penn State, and Wikipedia.
The warming that could occur just from the variation in numbers for the solar constant would entail an increase of more than .9k in temperature.
Figure in with 3:1 sensitivity it could be an increase of 2.8K
This uncertainty is so massive the entire enterprise is in peril.
But gee folks say the 1380 number is just out of date despite it being current figures on the websites of key institutions. And these naysayers provided exactly zero proof of those numbers being out of date. Nor have they proved the basic proposition that a bluesky peak in the solar curve above the blackbody curve is incapable of warming anything again without a shred of evidence to back up the narrative.
I am not saying thats the answer I am saying its a testable proposition. So where are the tests?
But obviously many other factors come into play as well. Texture of the surface, its specific spectral emissivity (not average), claims of the sky warming the surface which in turn warms the sky without proving first that the sky has gotten warmer. . .in an nonsensical nursery rhyme.
I get the intuitive forces that you use to run roughshod over the scientific method to get to a politically favored wish for control as I see that happening in a lot of places. . .far from being just climate change.
I don’t just see solar variation. I see orbit variation (jupiter/saturn conjunctions primarily which can be seen in the UAH 5 year low pass data along with major solar cycles with the major part of the curves in time with saturn/jupiter every 20 year conjunctions realizing that orbit variation isn’t just limited to jupiter and saturn.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/uah-global.jpeg
Note the correspondence to saturn/jupiter conjunctions of 2000 and 2020, plus the solar cycle peaks of 1989/90 and 2001/2.
One cannot just wave away each one one at a time and claim its effect is immaterial in lieu of an effect that has never been demonstrated and only hypothesized.
when these things can be an accumulation of effects from variation of ozone, volcanoes, solar cycles, planetary cycles, long term internal variations between the oceans and atmosphere, uncertain effects of aerosols, etc.
One can even attribute something to CO2 as increases in transpiration could at least in part brought to us by CO2 emissions greening the planet and changing the lapse rate.
Ultimately it makes sense that variations in the lapse rate might change the greenhouse effect but the only gas we know that does that is water vapor and thus it can be an amplification of any effect that can change the temperature of the surface.
But we don’t see this effect occurring in the annual CO2 data and its annual pattern of hitting maximum CO2 in the mid spring at the same time the minimum biannual mean global temperature is typically realized.
Then we can see the opposite occurring in mid fall. temperatures here are not responding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere unless you argue that more CO2 causes cooling by blocking more sunlight.
Now I am not making any claims here as to an explanation for our climate. I am merely pointing out uncertainties in the dominate technocrat narrative that is being demonstrated by the close attention we are paying to certain parameters that are important.
bdgwx,
Is it safe to assume that you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, for no good reason?
[laughing at strange GHE cultist trying to appear intelligent]
Bill, I’m responding to your statement “sb never works tim. it only works for imaginary black bodies with perfect spectral abso-r-ption curves.” That is false in the same way statements that the Ideal Gas Law never works, the 2LOT never works, or Newton’s universal law of gravitation never works because they are all formulated around assumptions that are never perfectly fulfilled in the real world.
b,
You wrote –
” . . . or Newtons universal law of gravitation never works because they are all formulated around assumptions that are never perfectly fulfilled in the real. ”
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation seems to work. Its formulation includes real mass, real distance. Maybe you are confused because it can be calculated as if the force acts through a single point.
What assumptions about gravity “are never perfectly fulfilled in the real” (whatever that means)?
Are you simply trying to draw attention away from the fact that you cannot even say what the effect of the GHE is supposed to be? Heating? Cooling? No effect at all?
Come on, man up – tell everyone what you believe! You can cope with a bit of laughter, can’5 you?
bdgwx says:
Bill, Im responding to your statement ”sb never works tim. it only works for imaginary black bodies with perfect spectral abso-r-ption curves.”
——————————
Thats just a cautionary tale you should read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585311
We obviously don’t have a good handle on where and when applying the SB law blindly based upon smooth blackbody curves. Many things affect this from different emissivities at different spectral wave lengths, color, texture, reflectivity both directed and diffuse. When trying to measure stuff in tenths of a degree or even a couple of degrees this is almost always critical.
Skeptics here have been regaled by a GHE that is caused by backradiation one day and the sun the next day. Somebody needs to start doing some experiments to establish over all accuracy levels regarding even how hot the sun can make stuff.
I can read how the moon gets hotter than the blackbody curve for sunlight suggests. I pointed out in the link above that the blackbody curve for sunlight is averaged across all spectral lines but has peak spectral lines at the top of the curve that exceed the blackbody curve by an estimated 18% based on using a ruler on a proportional drawing of the curve.
One needs to explain how oxygen and nitrogen can be so much hotter in the thermosphere and spots on the moon can rise way above the blackbody curve for sunlight. But no folks rely on SB blackbody curves and ignore SB emissivity parameter as it suits their purposes to produce propaganda for the public.
Sky Dragon cranks obviously have found another physical law to abuse.
They will do it again and again, until they will get spoon fed again and again.
And then they move to the next shiny thing, often one they forgot for a few weeks.
Obviously the point that flew about 60,000 feet over Willard’s head that the things we are talking about are NOT blackbodies.
bdg…no one is claiming S-B dos not work, we are questioning only the range of temperatures over which it works. Based on S-B, ice radiates 315 w/m^2, more energy than the Sun induces in Earth’s surface according to the energy budget pseudo-science.
You mentioned Newton’s law of gravitation. It works well enough in the macro world with masses the size of planets but it does not work at the atomic level unless certain impositions are made on alleged orbiting particles like electrons.
I don’t see why you’d include the 2nd law in the debate since it applies to all forms of energy, in that all energy moves from a higher potential to a lower potential.
Gordon 7:34 pm, you miss that based on S-B, ice radiates 315 w/m^2, more energy over a hemisphere of directions than the Sun induces in Earth’s surface from a few degrees in the sky according to the energy budget measurement sources.
Obviously the point that would fly 600,000 yards above Gills head if he had one is that the Moon is not a mere point, and thus according to his logic Newton Laws would not apply.
Quit the mutterings of gibberish Willard. Be specific.
Gill thinks he is in an Arby’s and acts as if he was a paying customer.
What he says about the SB Law is so ridiculous that it would break Newton’s laws. Simples.
Says the Hunter boy whose output on this blog is 100% based on nothing else than his personal gut feeling.
*
1. Hunter boy is the guy who discredits as ‘academic exercises’ the work on lunar spin computation made by astronomers and mathematicians like Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and hundreds of others who followed them: just because he is simply unable to understand that all celestial bodies spin – those included of course who seemingly don’t.
*
2. Hunter Boy is also the guy who not only suspects that the gridding (i.e. area-based averaging) of measurements is just a way to increase trends, but even dares to suggest that Roy Spencer thinks the like; this of course without being able to prove all that through appropriate sources.
And what besides gut feelings and sycophancy for historic scientists who never explicitly tested the propositions that Bindidon seems to believe they did.
Ooops!
I forgot to show the hyper-knowledgeable Hunter boy a stubborn, recalcitrant time series that not only absolutely refuses to show a higher trend in gridded case but even dares to show a slightly higher trend when generated without gridding!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oEI183aJd9U3BnIRpWgySiainCbnhjTt/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
OMG… How is that possible?
” And what besides gut feelings and sycophancy for historic scientists who never explicitly tested the propositions that Bindidon seems to believe they did. ”
Once more, Hunter boy’s unproven discrediting of other people’s work.
He isn’t even able to read all the existing papers written by people who had enough opportunities to test what their predecessors elaborated.
For example: two papers showing how star-calibrated lunar photographs were used to detect tiny irregularities in the lunar spin, called ‘physical librations’ (as opposed to the optical libration effects).
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1968AcA….18…91M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=91&epage=91&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1970Moon….1..347M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=347&epage=347&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
The same results were obtained later through the use of lunar laser ranging.
*
I know: you will discredit all that too: simply because to discredit is all you are able to do.
Hunter boy, you are such an ignorant boaster.
Apologies: I forgot the blog’s scanner. Links to be replaced by
http://tinyurl.com/ymwj84f5
http://tinyurl.com/3j93atm4
But… I doubt the Hunter boy will ever read anything of it.
Bindidon says:
Ooops!
OMG How is that possible?
———————————-
1) any kind of deviation is possible when you don’t have a representative sample.
2) my comment on gridding only applied to a known bias regarding the non-representative sample, namely uhi in a sample that has a predominate number of stations in areas with population growth. that doesn’t allegedly apply to uscrn stations although it is unknown to me if stations that have been studied in that network as incurring human encroachment had been removed from the network.
3)of course there can be other biases in a non-representative sample as well. bottom line is the network used to estimate gmt isn’t representative of the globe for measuring gmt.
your entire problem bin is you aren’t tolerant to discussion regarding the reliability of our monitoring networks because of your own political reasons.
thus you find yourself in the strawman business of trying to refute the criticism of poor reliability and trying to dress that up as taking a position on all non-representative samples as a claim i know the exact answer to or that a non-representative sample will always make things warmer. maybe you should put on a thinking cap and ponder that a bit before sounding off.
Bindidon says:
”For example: two papers showing how star-calibrated lunar photographs were used to detect tiny irregularities in the lunar spin, called physical librations (as opposed to the optical libration effects).”
how tiny tim? as tiny as the physical tides on the moon that the sun and planets cause the moons particles to move in an elliptical motion around the moon’s center?
Hunter boy
” your entire problem bin is you arent tolerant to discussion regarding the reliability of our monitoring networks because of your own political reasons. ”
People like you always credulously believe or claim I would have ‘own political reasons’.
The way you discuss on this blog is far more political than what I try to show.
You are ridiculing yourself with such statements.
*
And it seems that you even did not see that the two graphs I posted links to represent data collected by the USCRN stations, the most pristine ones in the world.
But I know: you would discredit everything, even USCRN.
Bindidon, I take no political stance beyond being of a mind for minimal government. . .which is being for a minimum of politics. The more you are for big government the more you want politics to control your life. I am not entirely libertarian by a long shot as sustainable resources do depend on good science-based management
But the truth is one has no idea of what is sustainable unless you learn to understand what is not sustainable. Without a firm understanding of that founded in science you are just a wanderer in the wilderness not where you are going and totally unaware of the harm you are doing to somebody or something.
Likewise your reaction to my skepticism only tells me you have no answer for it.
> I take no political stance beyond being of a mind for minimal government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Hunter boy
Who puts his personal gut feeling above the results of scientists and polemically discredits them instead of scientifically contradicting their results is by no means a person driven by sound skep~ticism.
You are, like Robertson, Clint R and a few others, a pseudo~skep~tic tr0ll who endlessly repeats the same trash without backing it up with any science.
Unlike you, I don’t discredit the work of people as ‘academic exercise’ despite being unable to really understand what they did.
*
Luckily, there are people like Newton who understood what you never could understand. Newton explained to others, e.g. Mercator, what he had understood.
Mercator understood Newton’s intelligent explanations too, and published them in his book in 1676:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qvyw6iRsli-ui5en5HjCCfJ6hV2nb0gn/view
You don’t understand the text? Visit a Catholic seminary, they’ll help you.
*
You can’t denŷ such things, Hunter boy.
Bindidon you are just a bald faced liar.
I have provided current references that state the orbit is a rotation. DREMT came up with the Madhavi reference that classifies motions into which the orbit can only fit a rotation.
While all you do is cook up ad hominems and 17th century reference materials that doesn’t even attempt to classify motions and doesn’t even have the word translation or rotation anywhere in the text. And you want me to go find a monk somewhere to tell me it does. LMAO!!!
> ad hominems and 17th century reference materials
I call art.
Hunter boy
Once more, you are manipulating the discussion.
1. Newton clearly stated in his Principia that the Moon spins at the same speed as it orbits the Earth.
2. No, I’m not talking about century-old stuff only, and you perfectly know that.
I’m talking about the facts that for example
– Mayer’s lunar spin computation is identical to nowadays’ – despite colmpletely different observation tools and observation data processing methods;
– all Russian, Polish, Greek, British 20th century’s scientists worked on what the 17th century’s scientists discovered, what you woefully discredit as ‘academic exercises – despite your inability to contradict them.
*
The liar here: that’s you, Hunter boy, because like your friends in denŷal, you intentionally distort what Newton wrote, and deliberately ignore what contemporary research achieved.
binny…”He isnt even able to read all the existing papers written by people who had enough opportunities to test what their predecessors elaborated”.
***
I have read the papers to which you refer, going so far as to translate them from German, in the case of Mayer, and I found nothing about spinning planets. The truth is that Mayer does not discuss a rotating Moon in his works.
Binny is so deluded on this subject he has to fabricate meaning from these people that is simply not there.
Bindidon says:
”Once more, you are manipulating the discussion.
1. Newton clearly stated in his Principia that the Moon spins at the same speed as it orbits the Earth.”
Well you guys are always claiming new science overturns old science. My source is more than 300 years more recent than yours.
I realize that Newton was a genius but he didn’t solve all the science mysteries of the world back in the 17th century.
Gill forgets to say that his source does not say that the Moon does not spin.
Oh well!
Of course it doesn’t Willard. It says it rotates around the earth.
You could show DREMTs video to a 3 year old and they would understand. Just goes to show you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.
Because his source tells him that he Moon rotates, it tells him it does not spin.
No wonder Gill joined bg in the gibberish department!
willard became an AI robot before he learned how to escape his play pen.
Gill kinda forgets to mention that when he showed the CSA Truther’s video to the kids on his lawn, they mocked him for not getting that the arm of the clock changed the orientation of the Moon, something which would break the First Law of Motion were the Moon not spinning!
Bill,
“sb never works tim. it only works for imaginary black bodies with perfect spectral abso-r-ption curves.”
–
–
Yes, exactly.
S-B never works in real material world. That is why the term
Surface Emissivity (ε) was invented.
–
the S-B equation J = σ*Τ^4 W/m^2 had for different materials, and for variations of temperature to be added
with Surface Emissivity (ε), which is an empirical for every application value.
and, therefore, the S-B equation was re-written as
J = ε*σ*Τ^4 W/m^2
The universality of S-B constant (σ) has been transformed into
(ε*σ) coupled term.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“sb never works tim.”
It works quite well actually. P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)T^4 quite accurately describes the power emitted by a surface.
” if you look at solar spectra there are shortwave spectral lines that exceed the blackbody curve”
Yes, but the sun is not a blackbody at a single fixed temperature. You would need to integrate the radiation from all the layers. When people quote a temperature like 5780 K for the sun, this is merely what a blackbody surface would have to be to emit the same power as the sun. Since some parts are cooler than 5780 K (eg the top of the photosphere) and some parts are hotter (eg the bottom of the photosphere or the corona), it is not surprising that the observed spectrum is not exactly that of a perfect blackbody.
“it a mistake to claim that a given wattage of sunlight can only warm something to a set temperature. ”
I certainly have never made such a claim. It is quite possible for the UV and x-rays from the hot parts of the sun (eg the corona) to warm sparse gas molecules in the thermosphere to quite high temperatures. There are also “selective surfaces” that can get quite warm in sunlight. But both of these rely on low emissivity in the IR range.
None of that changes the GHE or its ability to raise the average surface temperature above the ~ 255K limit set my the total incoming sunlight. Nothing needs to be ‘ignored’ — it just needs to be correctly understood.
I see you claiming a lot of stuff Tim but I don’t see an actual experiment regarding how hot a particular spot on the moon gets under a mean 1361w/m2 blackbody curve.
But I see here it being said that it gets to 400k which is the equivalent of 1451.65 W/m2.
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
here 300F = 422k and 1798w/m2
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/places-on-moon-where-its-always-sweater-weather#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBecause%20the%20Tranquillitatis%20pit%20is,hot%20enough%20to%20boil%20water.
How is that explained?
And how does the thermosphere obtain a temperature of 2755K?
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/thermosphere/en/#:~:text=The%20thermosphere%20lies%20between%20the,transfer%20the%20heat%20to%20you.
Its obvious that blackbody curves that demonstrate a mean wattage isn’t the only factor. One must also consider that SB recognized that outside of the blackbody radiance law that has to be carefully applied rather than just blaming it on CO2.
What Tim and the rest of the academic monks in here believe is that the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody curve is merely a benchmark from which to launch a research project from, then its a multi-faceted job to determine emissivity at every spectral line and then do the research experiments that will determine how a particular frequency will result in an equilibrated temperature and what that temperature is.
But no way! These guys slipped through the cracks and got degrees without understanding what they are being taught and now believe they can extrapolate to any outcome they wish for and pin the blame on anything they want to. All without coming up with a single well designed experiment that says they are right.
Tim
“None of that changes the GHE or its ability to raise the average surface temperature above the ~ 255K limit set my the total incoming sunlight. Nothing needs to be ignored it just needs to be correctly understood.”
–
Please explain, about the Moon’s
the average surface temperature,
when the Moon’s limit set my the total incoming sunlight
is ~ 270,4K.
“How is that explained?”
Time to use our critical thinking skills!
The area in question is in a pit, while the calculations you have are for a flat surface. The pit is described as about 100 m deep and about 100 m across, which is quite a deep & steep pit. At the bottom at noon, the walls will a) reflect extra sunlight to the bottom and b) be rather warm and emit considerable IR to the bottom. Together, these would be (ball park figures) 1200 W/m^2 direct sunlight, 50 W/m^2 reflected sunlight, and, oh I don’t know, 550 W/m^2 of thermal IR from the warm 350 K walls of the pit. There is the 1800 W/m^2 to reach 422 K at the bottom.
Of course, any of these numbers could be off a bit. The shape of the pit and the albedo of the rocks would matter.
But 422 K is not unreasonable for the geometry of the pit.
Bill muses: “What Tim and the rest of the academic monks in here believe …”
You don’t begin to know what I believe.
“and got degrees …”
Yep! Do you have physics degree? Have you done actual research all the way from 4 K to 2000 K? Have you successfully used thermal radiation calculations as part of that research?
If not, maybe you DON’T actually know as much as you think. Maybe you DO have a bit to learn from others here.
bill…there is also the fact, usually overlooked, that concepts offered by Stefan, Boltzmann, et al were presented well before Bohr discovered the actual relationship between EM emissions and electrons orbiting atoms.
I was reading an old electrical engineering textbook this morning…don’t ask why…and they covered Bohr’s basic theory, which is a prerequisite in electronics since the field is based largely on Bohr’s quantum theory. The authors emphasized that when an electron is excited from the ground state in a single jump due to a powerful radiation from UV, it does not have to jump back in the same simple step. It can jump back through several steps, emitting IR and visible light en route.
The meaning is clear. If an electron is excited by a more powerful radiation at a single frequency, the electron can respond by generating multiple frequencies of radiation as it returns to ground state.
Neither Stefan, Boltzmann, nor Planck knew anything about this theory. They had no idea that electrons excited by heating a platinum filament could produce colours that might not be related to the actual temperature. I am not claiming this to be significant, only that they knew nothing about the theory. It is significant when making claims about S-B for ice, where no colours can be emitted hence no relationship between temperature and EM frequencies, the basis of S-B.
Planck was a big enough man to admit this, claiming had he known about electrons it would have made his work infinitely easier.
I am not advocating scrapping S-B or blackbody theory, which would be akin to burning books. However, we need to place them in a proper context. One might claim the same for other science from days gone by but much of it is still valid. The 2nd law and entropy are still valid as long as we consider the laws as derived by Clausius, who was to thermodyamics what Newton was to physics and math.
Having said, that, Clausius was wrong about heat transfer by radiation. He thought heat was transferred in both directions as was typical of his times, when heat was believed to flow through space as heat rays. Bohr’s theory proves heat can only be transferred in one direction by radiation…no two-way transfer.
“…Bohr’s theory proves heat can only be transferred in one direction by radiation”
No Gordon, you still confuse heat with radiation. EMR is NOT heat. Thermodynamic internal energy can be transferred between objects in both directions by radiation.
tim f…”Define hot. At which temperature does S-B stop working? 5000K? 2000K? 1200K? 948K?”
***
Better question is, when does it start working? Tyndall heated a platinum filament wire till it started glowing colour, around 500C. He could see the EM and that represents hot. Because he could see the EM, he could convert it to an equivalent colour temperature, derived by measuring heated objects that glowed those colours.
Who has ever confirmed by experiment that temperatures below the 500C for a filament wire has a T^4 relationship between temperature and EM intensity?
I still want to know what the watt has to do with the measurement of EM and ‘watt’ (Cockney) that means? I pointed out that the 13xx w/m^2 EM intensity at TOA represents almost a 2 HP electric motor, provided the 1 m^2 intensity can be concentrated into the 17 amps required in a conductor to drive the 2 HP motor.
Based on the misrepresented S-B equation, a square metre of ice should be able to run 3 x 100 watt light bulbs at full brightness.
Why do you keep referring to science that is more than a century old??? People have continued to explore thermal radiation after Tyndall.
The “black body curve” has been accurately measured for 2.7 K CMBR. It has been accurately measured for room temperature objects. It has been accurately measured for stars. This is not in the least controversial.
Because S-B is still based on the Tyndall experiment just as basic quantum theory is still based on the theory of Neils Bohr in 1913. To scientists with integrity, the 2nd law and entropy are still based on the Clausius definition and are still valid. Only charlatans re-define the work of the original authors and claim a new meaning.
If you are going to apply S-B you need to understand the physical reality on which it is based. I described it to you, the colours given off by a platinum filament wire progressively heated by increasing the electrical current through it. I don’t see how the results of such an experiment, performed between about 500C and 1500C can be applied to ice.
It’s obvious that the intensity of radiation becomes far more pronounced at higher temperatures than at colder temperatures. But even then, the effect of radiation drops off drastically with distance. As I have pointed out, a cherry-red electric stove ring which can boil water easily, emits radiation that cannot even be felt a few feet away.
Yet the Sun emits radiation that can produce heat in skin from a distance of 93 million miles. The surface of the Sun is claimed to be about 5000 C whereas a cherry red stove ring is rated about about 1000 C. Something is clearly wrong with the theory about radiation.
Something just occurred to me. A tungsten filament when heated electrical warms to about 3000 C. Yet a platinum filament, accordig to Tyndall, only heats to 1600 C before giving off an equivalent light. There may be something wrong with the Tyndall experiment. Perhaps Stefan used some fanciful conclusions to reach his S-B equation.
Stefan had a certain ratio of temperature to radiance in mind prior to the Tyndall experiment and may have inadvertently been influenced by that figure. I’d like to see the experiment repeated in laboratory conditions with modern equipment.
“Platinum is an attractive silvery white metal with a melting point of 1,774 deg C”
“Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500F).”
But alloys of steel {with tungsten and others}
“The melting point of steel ranges from 2500-2800F or 1371-1540C.”
“Tungsten metal was first isolated (1783) by the Spanish chemists and mineralogists Juan Jos and Fausto Elhuyar ”
–When was tungsten first used?
Infographic: The History of Tungsten, the Strongest Natural …
1903: Filaments in lamps and lightbulbs were the first use of tungsten that made use of its extremely high melting point and its electrical conductivity.–
“John Tyndall FRS (/ˈtɪndəl/; 2 August 1820 4 December 1893) was a prominent 19th-century Irish physicist.”
For him, probably platinum metal was highest melting point.
In terms of sun it emits X rays. But not a lot even if close to it, but a lot less at Earth distance. But magnify sunlight {which is similar getting closer to Sun] could vaporizes, anything.
The kids melt bricks with magnified sunlight.
Or half our sunlight is shortwave IR, because of distance, and I don’t think 1/2 energy of magnified sunlight is 1/2 shortwave IR.
In the more general (and realistic) case, the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength. The total emissivity, as applicable to the StefanBoltzmann law, may be calculated as a weighted average of the spectral emissivity, with the blackbody emission spectrum serving as the weighting function. It follows that if the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength then the total emissivity depends on the temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
“It follows that if the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength then the total emissivity depends on the temperature.
“Because S-B is still based on the Tyndall experiment …”
No! No! 1000x NO!
Science does not stagnate with the first person that explores an idea! S-B is based on ~ 150 years of experiments. S-B is based on more than just eyes as detectors. S-B is based on more than just hot tungsten or hot platinum.
Tim SB equations get the blackbody curve. I doesn’t get you anything regarding greybodies.
Its difficult to test the greybody equilibriums and emissivity because it varies by frequency.
Somebody needs to answer questions why a grey body with an albedo of 12% warmed 1361w/m2 sun at a point perpendicular to the sun and absorbs less than 1200w/m2 is measured to get as hot as 400k which would be the equivalent of being warmed by over 1450w/m2.
There are also some craters where the surface temperature rises to 423k the blackbody equivalent of 1822w/m2.
Is this because some of the spectral peaks of the sun are considerably higher that the blackbody curve of the sun that is the equivalent of its mean spectral intensity across all wavelengths?
Until you have an explanation for that there will be no progress made by your insistence that SB is relevant.
In a vacuum, but talking about the Moon.
We are sending robotic missions to Moon.
Japan has one approaching the Moon. And Musk
and Bezos rockets are going launch a couple
this month.
And 2024 is going to have a lot of stuff happening regarding
the Moon.
Happy New Year.
bdg…”It [GAT] is useful because it tells if the climate system is warming or cooling…”
***
During the current era, all it tells us is this. There is a slight skew toward warming as opposed to cooling. What it does not tell us is that certain parts of the planet are cooling while other parts are warming. That’s wrt a 30 years baseline.
The 1C average warming over the past 180 years is an average between a transient warming of up to 5C in places and a cooling of 4 C in others.
What we don’t know is the actual cooling over the 400+ year Little Ice Age. The IPCC is on record as claiming the LIA applied only to Europe, and that is about as unscientific as one can be. They fail to explain how Europe could cool 1C to 2c while the rest of the planet remained the same. We know it did not since there is anecdotal evidence of inordinate cooling in North America and the Arctic. There is also proxy records indicated cooling throughout the planet.
We know the effect a 1C to 2C cooling had in certain areas but we can’t talk about the effect of the recovery from that cooling with regard to climate change because we are returning to normal, not a projected warming effect due to anthropogenic sources.
All we know in current times is the experience of living in a relatively normal period following a mini ice age. Alarmists have misinterpreted the warming as being caused by anthropogenic forces.
Gordon,
Bingbongwaxmonkey doesn’t understand that the real world does not conform to reduced variance when one attempts to average weather. Even with the simplest example one could provide, he still doesn’t comprehend. He cites the GUM, but he doesn’t know how to apply it to the real world.
walter…alarmists don’t understand the importance of 1 thermometer per 100,000 km of the planet’s surface area. A thermometer could not give a precise average within a 150 square mile area around of Vancouver, Canada, never mind a thermometer to cover 100,000 km.
After hanging around Roy’s blog for several years, and observing the thinking of alarmists, it has become obvious that alarmists are a special breed who prefer to follow in the steps of authority figures rather than thinking for themselves. They will stick to the meme of anthropogenic warming despite any evidence presented to the contrary.
Their authority figure is the IPCC and John Christy of UAH has served as both a lead author and reviewer on IPCC reviews. John is a man of integrity and he reports that a similar appeal to authority prevails at IPCC reviews. Many reviewers show up at reviews with a preconceived opinion on what they will find from reviewing papers. And, voila, they find what they expected to find.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
To be fair, there have been many reviewers in the past who preferred caution to projection and wanted to wait and see what would develop. However, they were over-ruled by those preferring an appeal to authority. These days, skeptics are not even invited.
> John is a man of integrity and he reports that a similar appeal to authority prevails at IPCC reviews.
I call art.
“I call art.”
Three word gibberish generation!
Why are you calling Art? Is he another of your fantasy friends?
Come on, Willard, you’re getting as bad as that other Willard, Quine!
Too dumb to get the artfulness of Bordo’s claim, Möron Mike?
So sad, too bad.
I call art.
Three word gibberish generation!
Why are you calling Art? Is he another of your fantasy friends?
Come on, Willard, youre getting as bad as that other Willard, Quine!
Mron Mike,
You call art too?
Why would you, if you do not know what than means?
Keep braying!
Wasted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I call art.”
Three word gibberish generation!
Why are you calling Art? Is he another of your fantasy friends?
Come on, Willard, you’re getting as bad as that other Willard, Quine!
Moreon Mike,
You say –
“Why are you calling Art?”
Who’s Art?
“Alarmists have misinterpreted the warming as being caused by anthropogenic forces.”
Who and what are alarmists?
It’s broad category of those making stories for corporate news and if topic is the weather/climate it has to follow the religion.
World’s getting worse and it’s not due to their corruption and brainwashing, rather, you have to depend on them.
These clowns that have never saved the world, ever. But they are the leadership you need.
Anyhow, the world getting better, no thanks to the corrupt media.
It’s not new, they have always needed alarmism, that’s their only business model {as they honestly, say}.
So, “alarmist scientists” are writing what they will get paid for {which makes them, what? Not whores, no, no, fiction writers}.
And if they believe what they saying, then it’s their serious mental problem.
But such weiters might believe they need totalitarian state to get better pay. And large corporations are similar/same/identical as totalitarian state.
Google gave up on “do no evil”.
A childish notion, for any large governmental monopoly.
Everyone knows 15 C is cold air temperature. And that we are in an Ice Age, and any warming would be welcome.
And it’s not going to happen.
Just build a nice fire. Instant AGW!
[GR]…valid question…”How do you get tangent lines to non-continuous curves?”
[Binny]…typical response…”How is it possible to be so uneducated and yet say so much nonsense all over this blog?”
***
Binny seems to think he is educated when he presents a series of non-continuous curves and claims they have a tangent line for each. Binny does not understand basic calculus where the slope of a tangent line is the first derivative of the curve. However, the curve needs to have an equation, therefore it must be continuous. That is, it cannot have sharp linear angles as does the curves presented by Binny.
Anyone care to derive equations for Binny’s set of spaghetti curves?
https://i.postimg.cc/vBKGq3JH/nino34-Mon311223.png
Anyone willing to find the 1st derivative for any of them?
Any discontinuity in a curve disqualifies it from being continuous. Duh!!! Ergo, it disqualifies the full curve from having a tangent line. Double duh!!! You can divide the curve into continuous sections and determine a tangent line for each, but Binny is too busy composing curves in Excel while manufacturing sections to suit his calculations. Hence they come out as spaghetti graphs with major discontinuities.
“Binny seems to think he is educated when he presents a series of non-continuous curves and claims they have a tangent line for each.”
Those are are all continuous curves. A non-continuous curve has a jump (or a set of jumps). Simply having “sharp angles” does not make it non-continuous.
I would suggest reviewing basic mathematical terminology before trying to give lessons.
tim f…”Simply having sharp angles does not make it non-continuous”.
***
Give me a function defining a curve containing a sharp angle.
The equation of a circle, which is continuous is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. If you break the circumference and insert two straight lines forming an angle, it can no longer be defined by that equation. If you simply take an arc out of the circle, it is no loner a circle nor is it continuous.
None of Binny’s curves are continuous hence have no definable tangent line representing them. You seem to think continuity means joining dots to make a line. If so, you need to study some calculus.
As I said, a continuous curve has a derivative at each point on the curve and the derivation, dy/dx represents the slope of the tangent line at that point.
“As I said, a continuous curve has a derivative at each point on the curve”
That is simply not the definition of “continuous” in calculus. Intuitively, “continuous” means you never have to lift your pencil to draw the function.
f(x) = |x| is continuous but has no derivative at x = 0.
Thanks Tim… but it’s hopeless to communicate with a guy who never learns anything and whose ‘knowledge’ is based on the trash posted on contrarian blogs.
I could have explained that every set of points can be made part of a continuous curve described by a polynomial, but… why?
People like Robertson aren’t interested in explanations of any kind: they’re just here to endlessly post, re-post and re-re-post their own blah blah.
Coming from somebody who has yet to reveal he understands what elevating form over substance entails.
Our so-called educated scientists on this blog continually elevate words, symbols, reductions and other tools of the trade that they obviously were never well enough experienced or qualified in to actually get a job using them on real world problems. All they ever focus on is a private language used exclusively in academia. A language whose only real use is in prepping the fetus scientist for the day he becomes an apprentice scientist. . .which apparently they never arrived at. In marine science that’s somebody yet to take their first research voyage.
These people have learned the tools but haven’t yet gotten any experience in using them in real research of the natural world.
Typical Hunter boy blah blah which has not anything to do with my reaction to Robertson’s nonsense.
How Many Planets Could Be in the Kuiper Belt?
-“This study comes as scientists currently estimate that billions, if not trillions, of FFPs could exist within our Milky Way Galaxy, with a recently submitted study using data from NASAs James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to identify 540 potential Jupiter-sized rogue planet candidates, with some hypothesized to be pairs of rouge planets, also called binary rogue planets. This was followed up by another recently submitted study that investigated the origin and evolution of those binary rogue planets, as well. Scientists currently hypothesize that rogue planets are formed from two scenarios: As part of their own solar system but are then somehow ejected into the cosmos, or they form in isolation. But what is the significance of studying free-floating planets, overall?-
Kuiper belt is way out there, and FFP is Free Floating Planets.
The significant of them, is we have and getting big enough telescopes to see them. And being able to see that vast amount sky in short period of time, like decades rather than centuries peering thru a small straw hole of telescope which is also was the best and very expensive with limiting amount of time to use it.
Or within a decade we should be able to see them {if they are there}.
–For the study, Siraj used computer models to simulate the potential for FFPs being captured in the outer solar system while incorporating a myriad of factors, including semimajor axis, eccentricity, and observation times of FFPs. After conducting approximately 100,000,000 simulations, the results indicate the potential for the existence of a Mars-sized, or even a Mercury-sized planetary body somewhere in the outer solar system approximately 1,400 AU from the Sun, with Siraj noting in the study the distance could range between 600 to 3,500 AU. But what is the significance of a terrestrial planet so far out in the outer solar system as opposed to a gas giant planet?–
A gas giant planet could be useful, especially if had billions years of more time, to cool than our “local” gas giants.
But I wonder how much they get hit by “space rocks” and velocity they, on average, get hit. You could guess, it’s mostly slow impactors.
–2024 in Preview
Elections
First of all, as we all know as, with a heavy heart, we put away the noisemakers and funny hats, and drain the bottles of the last champagne, it is now, for our sins (A second flood, a simple famine Plagues of locusts everywhere Or a cataclysmic earthquake Id accept with some despair But, no, you sent us Congress. Election Season Good God, sir, was that fair?)
So, how does that turn out.
Effed if I know! No, seriously. Effed if I know. Or anyone else knows.
I love the eternal optimists, or maybe fantasists argle bargling that neither Biden nor Trump will be candidates, or that at least one of them wont be.–
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2024/01/01/cross-my-palm-with-silver-2/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
{but she did it}
Weekly ENSO3.4 (week ending Dec 30): +2.0
The ONI for Oct-Nov-Dec should be about +1.9, which would make it the 6th highest peak out of 27 El Nino seasons since 1950 (assuming it is the peak).
Note: There is no statement here about global temperatures. I shouldn’t need to make that obvious statement, but … you know …
A,
There is a completely pointless statement not about global temperatures . . .
There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike Flynn. Previous comment, case in point.
A,
You wrote –
“There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike Flynn.”
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .?
Is it because you can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
Oh well, you might as well just complain that I decline to use a pseudonym of your choosing.
[GHE cultist gets bent out of shape] and whines]
A,
You wrote –
“There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike Flynn.”
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .?
Is it because you can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
Oh well, you might as well just complain that I decline to use a pseudonym of your choosing.
[GHE cultist gets bent out of shape and whines]
You wrote –
“You wrote
‘There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike Flynn.’
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .? ”
.
.
.
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .?
A,
You wrote
“There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike Flynn.”
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .?
Is it because you cant even say what the GHE is supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
Oh well, you might as well just complain that I decline to use a pseudonym of your choosing.
[GHE cultist gets bent out of shape and whines]
Ah yes – the old strategy of boring others out of replying.
I guess we know that Ctrl, A, C and V work on your keyboard. Perhaps you could give the other keys a workout.
Mike Flynn is a keyboard warrior who left his keyboard a long while ago.
A,
You wrote
“There is a completely pointless poster not about to admit he is Mike ”
Oh dear! And this is important to you because . . .?
Is it because you cant even say what the GHE is supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
Oh well, you might as well just complain that I decline to use a pseudonym of your choosing.
[GHE cultist gets bent out of shape and whines]
Tim S here and here.
You did not differentiate between the natural GHE, the existence of which is not disputed, and the enhanced GHE which has been imputed to burgeoning human industrial activities since the mid-18th century.
In round numbers, water vapor and clouds account for 75% of the GHE, CO2 20%, and the minor GHGs and aerosols 5%.
The noncondensing GHGs (CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, etc.) provide the key radiative forcing supporting the GHE and drive the fast feedback contributions from water vapor and clouds.
That is all I’m going to say on that subject.
There is a difference between the contribution to the greenhouse effect itself, and the contribution to CHANGES in the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes much more than that to CHANGES in the greenhouse effect.
Do say more.
I can’t think of anything else to add, certainly not to a passive-aggressive comment.
Quantifying how much “much more than that” is would be immensely clarifying.
The best estimate is that we are responsible for all the observable increase since the 50s, and more.
NOAA says two-thirds.
So you say.
IPCC estimate that 106% of the observed temperature rise is due to AGW.
We have turned the 0.01C/decade natural cooling rate into a 0.2C/decade artificial warming rate.
Willard
“According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.”
http://tinyurl.com/percentco2
Willard,
You wrote “The best estimate is that we are responsible for all the observable increase since the 50s, and more.”
Obviously, then, nothing to do with any GHE , which you described as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Entropic man says:
”IPCC estimate that 106% of the observed temperature rise is due to AGW.”
Of course they do. If they said less they would cease to exist. As it is they are hanging by their fingernails.
Bobdesbond,
The A in AGW is not restricted to CO2. It includes all the other greenhouse gases we dump in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow. It also includes land-use.
Arkady,
You wrote –
“You did not differentiate between the natural GHE, the existence of which is not disputed, and the enhanced GHE which has been imputed to burgeoning human industrial activities since the mid-18th century.”
What is this “not disputed” GHE you mention? Is it the GHE which allowed the Earth to progressively cool for four and a half billion years, or some other GHE?
[laughing at confused GHE cultist]
There is a simple answer. Nobody can say for certain what the effects of the individual contributors might be. Their combined effect on the real atmosphere is largely unknown. Theoretical analysis does not work. It is much too complex with many known interactions and other interactions that are difficult to established. The proof is the very wide range of results from various climate models produced by people who “believe” in climate change, and want to produce accurate results. Everyone is guessing.
” Nobody can say for certain…”
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one. Voltaire
Scientists who have made climate change their field of research have a special responsibility to inform the public and to provide the background information upon which politicians can base their decisions. However, they find themselves in a special kind of dilemma.
1/ On the one hand they are called upon to make recommendations for decision making in the face of much uncertainty.
2/ On the other hand many think that it may be too late for remedial action if they wait until they have the certainty that will satisfy all critics.
3/ The cardinal question is obviously: How much certainty is enough to warrant action? This question involves a difficult value judgement which has to be viewed against potential risks and benefits involved.
So the activism and fake warnings are justified because “it may be too late for remedial action if they wait until they have the certainty that will satisfy all critics”. And if there are no real critics, just “climate change deniers”, then everyone gets a free pass to make any wild claim because they are not challenged.
You have at once described both the condition in the liberal media, and why it is fundamentally dishonest. The interesting part is that emission reductions in the “developed” countries can have no real effect while countries such as China and India proceed with unchecked increases.
I saw an interesting news story that is really just propaganda. It seems that China is a leader in green solar and wind energy. They are also leading the way in developing new coal fired power plants and digging ever deeper coal mines. Oh well, progress is not always steady.
I’ll leave the politics to you. I’m a man of science. Have a nice life.
And I will leave your strawman in flames along with your complete dodge of the facts — again!
A,
You jokingly wrote “Ill leave the politics to you. Im a man of science. Have a nice life”
As a “man of science”, you would have no trouble at all describing the GHE in a way which reflects reality, would you?
I’ll help by starting off “The GHE is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “. From there, you can provide a testable hypothesis, reproducible experiments to support your hypothesis, and so on.
Or you can just scuttle away back into your cesspit, like the cultist cockroach that you are!
Does that sound fair?
Nobody can say for certain what the effects of the individual contributors might be.
That is argument for taking a cautious approach.
b,
Unless you agree with Svante Arrhenius, who said “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, . . . “.
There are obviously people like you who would say “What would a donkey like Arrhenius know, anyway?”.
Only joking, of course. In a chaotic system like the atmosphere, internal chaos can result in completely unpredictable outcomes. That’s me not joking. Chaos means that the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Nobody at all has the faintest idea of whether the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil might cause or prevent a tornado in Texas, as Edward Lorenz put it.
Your “cautious approach” is specious nonsense. You might as well commit suicide immediately, before one or more of an infinite number of adverse outcomes ruin your life completely.
For those who appreciate comparisons of surface and LT data: here is one showing USCRN station data together with UAH 6.0 LT’s regional data above CONUS+AK (column ‘usa49’ in the monthly report):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZsvN3aoUXb0RcwuHDeULoe2QZli-KJYM/view
Nota bene
While UAH’s ‘usa49’ data is based on about 200 2.5 degree grid cells, the USCRN anomaly data wrt the mean of 2011-2020 is based on less cells (maximum 102, minimum 17 in 2003).
Perhaps restricting the UAH time series to the cells that include the USCRN stations would provide more similarity.
Simple running mean carry distortions that are well known and acknowledged.
So do running modes, running medians and running midpoints.
Means may be imperfect but they are better than the alternatives.
Means only apply to normally distributed, symmetrical, examples.
Not at all. You can calculate a mean for any set of data. It does not have to be gaussian.
Right weighted, left weighted and multimodal distributions all have means, though their usefulness varies.
For example if you plot the results of all the estimates of climate sensitivity you get this.
See Figure 5.14 here.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/142
Which of your chosen metrics best describes the most probable climate sensitivity based on this ensemble, and why?
Statisticians seem to differ with you on that. Of course a mean an always be calculated but it has no statistical meaning that is useful.
…can always…
RLH: Means only apply to normally distributed, symmetrical, examples.
That is patently false. And I gave you a real world example where a mean is far more useful than a median when the distribution is no where close to gaussian or even symmetrical.
RLH: Statisticians seem to differ with you on that.
That is also patently false. Your argument contains a fallacy so common it has a name. Affirming a disjunct. Just because you can find examples where a median is more useful does not preclude examples where a mean is more useful like would be the case in computing energy content change within a system like what I presented to you earlier. The mean will comply with the 1LOT while the median will not.
Explain
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/uah-global.jpeg
then.
It’s your graph.
Blindsley H00d still can’t avoid egomaniacally producing himself instead of technically contributing to the discussion.
In theory, he could do this by contradicting my comparison of (Tmin+Tmax)/2, median and 24h averages for USCRN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
But in fact, he was never and is not able to contradict the results, and hence resorts to secondary details which do not play any role in the discussion.
Why is he not able to do the same work, by the way showing the differences between UAH and USCRN by using cascaded running means?
You seem to think that posing questions and demanding work proves something. It doesn’t.
VP said that he would not wish simple running means (because of the distortions it brings) on his worst enemy and I have no reason to differ.
It was completely clear to me that if Blindsley H00d stopped being successful with his hopeless median story, he would then boldly release a cloud of CRM smoke to distract from his failure:
” Simple running mean carry distortions that are well known and acknowledged. ”
” VP said that he would not wish simple running means (because of the distortions it brings) on his worst enemy and I have no reason to differ. ”
Such sentences fitting his personal narrative and far away from all discussion streams, we had to read here all the time during months.
*
But with this ridiculously sissyish
” You seem to think that posing questions and demanding work proves something. It doesn’t. ”
he really loses all decency, all reason.
*
I don’t want to pursue his useless polemical path and would rather show what he demands from others but is unable to do himself because he lacks the technical skills to generate anomaly-based surface data comparable to UAH anomalies.
Here is therefore the same graph as above, with 36/30/23 month C3RMs a la Vaughan Pratt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJQJifaFu6nqnDReRwQAKXZ5j_TA37z-/view
Yeah. Anyone will enjoy the ’36’ month running mean with an inactive window of 89 months :–)
*
Blindsley H00d is really a poor, desperate, frustrated polemicist, and hence will never stop stalking.
So what!
It would be nice if Binny would stop blethering and talk some real statistics theory.
I’m struggling to understand why so many people want Donald Trump back as POTUS.
So far he has criminal or civil trials coming up for giving hush money to a port star, serial assault, false accounting, conspiracy to rig the Georgia election and sending a mob to stop Congress confirming the election result. I don’t know which of them he’s guilty of yet, that’s a matter for the courts.
In the meantime it’s like choosing an indicted child abuser as your babysitter. They may be innocent until proven guilty, but who would take the risk?
What is your opinion of Kamala Harris? Do you thing Biden will serve out his full term, let alone 5 more years? Should Kamala be replaced on the ticket by Gavin Newsom? Just asking for a friend. Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe because he is the best choice available for jobs, the economy, national security, world trade, balancing contributions to world coalitions, reducing big government, reduce the international trading off American jobs for more wealth for the wealthy intellectual property right owners, making American workers more competitive in the global market despite being paid more by reducing high rates of taxation on the fruits of their labors, meaning they still have to give value at least equal to what they get paid.
Meanwhile most of us aren’t concerned that he may or may not have slept with a porn star and gave her some money to not claim he did. the rest you mention can’t withstand the scrutiny of having all the earmarks of a political attack. At least you admit to having no idea of whether or not that’s the case.
Makes more than just a little sense to me. I mean I really don’t know if the uniparty approach to the US being the world’s policeman is the way to go or not. . .but I do know that those who benefit from that should pay their share.
But bottom line I know a common industrial worker in America doesn’t benefit from sponsoring a war in Ukraine, possibly winning it, sending in entrepreneurs to rebuild Ukraine, build factories, hire Ukrainians to work in them and compete with American made goods.
Ultimately one has to choose between Russia having world conquering ambitions vs simply trying to stop the advance of military alliances in opposition to Russia into territories that have Russian for 211 of the last 240 years. Which do you believe?
Our minarchist extends his crankitude beyond radiative transfer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Analysis has suggested that the economy would have grown without any intervention by [Teh Donald] administration.”
That’s the same sort of analysis that suggested that if you had any brains at all, you would be a lot smarter?
Mike Flynn,
You have not clocked on the link.
So what are you braying about?
Wonky Wee
You quoted –
“Analysis has suggested that the economy would have grown without any intervention by [Teh Donald] administration.”
That’s the same sort of analysis that suggested that if you had any brains at all, you would be a lot smarter?
You should know by now that anything you link to is either worthless, or contradicts you.
Maybe you could provide a reputable source which supports your contention that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”? That would be useful!
Moeron Mike,
You did not click on the link, but know that it contradicts me.
Being a Dragon crank is one hell of a drug!
Cheers.
Wonky Wee
You quoted
Analysis has suggested that the economy would have grown without any intervention by [Teh Donald] administration.”
Thats the same sort of analysis that suggested that if you had any brains at all, you would be a lot smarter?
You should know by now that anything you link to is either worthless, or contradicts you.
Maybe you could provide a reputable source which supports your contention that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”? That would be useful!
Moeron Mike,
Is it senility that keeps you copy-pasting the same silly comments from your tablet?
“But bottom line I know a common industrial worker in America doesnt benefit from sponsoring a war in Ukraine, possibly winning it, sending in entrepreneurs to rebuild Ukraine, build factories, hire Ukrainians to work in them and compete with American made goods.”
Sounds like you would have been opposed to our involvement in WWII and the rebuilding of Europe after.
“Ultimately one has to choose between Russia having world conquering ambitions vs simply trying to stop the advance of military alliances in opposition to Russia into territories that have Russian for 211 of the last 240 years.”
Gee, a hundred years ago there were Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Turkish empires that had been around for centuries prior. Maybe they should be allowed to invade their neighbors, to rebuild them?
Russia, Ukraine, and the US signed a treaty in 1993 guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in exchange for their nukes.
Nate,,
“From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the U.S. government, . . . ”
From 1871 onwards, the US record is not much better, and the US unilaterally withdraws from treaties and agreements which no longer suit it.
US bullying through threats of exercising military power, or imposing economic or other sanctions, is becoming less effective. Covert assassinations in foreign countries, extraordinary renditions, indefinite imprisonment without trial, government approved torture, are just a few of the reasons that “the international community” is showing less enthusiasm than before to leap to do the bidding of the US.
The US has armed itself to ensure it will win WW2, should that event occur again. In the meantime, the world has moved on, and the US is being left behind. Great powers emerge, great powers disappear.
The future could be interesting.
nate…”Russia, Ukraine, and the US signed a treaty in 1993 guaranteeing Ukraines sovereignty and borders in exchange for their nukes”.
***
The Ukraine opted out of democracy when they allowed a democratically-elected president to be ousted by armed nationalists in 2014. When the former USSR imploded and countries like Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which now border Russia, arbitrarily drew boundaries that trapped natural, Russian-speaking people in their countries, they trapped natural Russians in their countries. These Russians have been the target of nationalists in those countries.
As long as countries like Ukraine continue this practice of ostracizing Russian-speaking citizens they set themselves up for being invaded by Russia. Problems began in the Ukraine when they ousted the president in 2014. Russians in eastern Ukraine in the Donbass region revolted after the president was ousted and they were treated badly by the Kyiv government and the West who used propaganda against them. We were told in the West they were Russian troublemakers when, in fact, they were standing up for their rights under a democracy.
The Ukraine government put them in their present position by grossly disrespecting democracy. If US citizens were trapped in another country, one would expect the US to rescue them. However, I cannot see the US dissolving and allowing US citizens to become trapped in foreign countries.
nate says: ”Gee, a hundred years ago there were Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Turkish empires that had been around for centuries prior. Maybe they should be allowed to invade their neighbors, to rebuild them?”
not an easy question.
i suppose that might depend upon your viewpoint is on the rebuilding of the islamic caliphate that was the ottomans.
for instance where you might stand on the islamic conflicts with israel.
it seems to me what the people in the various states/districts/provinces/townships feel about being occupied by corrupt higher powers and to what degree they are harrassed by outsiders and/or they may in fact be the harrassers of other independent persons/townships/districts/states etc. all figure into the equation. its not exactly a black or white issue and its not exactly the case we can claim to have clean hands in these matters.
Trump was a great president. The only single term president who was great.
It would be more fun if he lost and Biden wins and Biden is then is removed from office.
Maybe Trump will be last actual US president.
Have a convention, and change how this nation is governed.
Any ideas of how to improve it?
Just accept the popular vote as definitive.
Do you think California will continue to lose population?
With ocean settlements, California could be a winner.
Democracies accept that the overall public vote is important.
And the United “States” of America has national elections by state. The individual representatives for the House of Representatives are elected in their district, the Senators are elected in state-wide elections, and the “electors” who cast their vote for president are also appointed based on state-wide results. Candidates for President must appoint a slate of electors who will cast a vote for them. They need one elector for each representative and 2 more because each state has 2 Senators. The more populated states have more representatives. The system works this way as intended by the framers of the Constitution so that the more populated states would not completely dominate the election for president. The idea to change to a popular vote comes from the more populated states that would like to have more power.
But reducing the popular vote to a crude approximation by constraining it to a limited count of the actual vote is faulty in is outcome.
Next step in TS’ Very Serious playbook:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila
Anyone who thinks that an internet website is a good place to become educated about the Constitution deserves to be misled. The structure of the three branches of government is clearly defined in the Constitution. Although it has evolved in some ways, it has lasted for a long time and still stands as a model for the rest of the world.
If someone needs more than my brief description, they should seek a reliable source.
Anyone who believes that TS is as Very Serious as he portrays himself deserves to buy his stock recommendations.
The problem for Trump is that Biden did get more votes and won more states in 2020. The problem for the country is that there was a massive turnout of mail-in ballots that took many weeks to count. The daily dribble of results was an embarrassment to the country, and a stain on the democratic process. The image of boxes arriving in the back of pickup trucks and people casually counting ballots was compelling, but Trump threw away any chance to use that issue in a meaningful way.
Instead of thinking about the country and the prospect of future mail-in disasters, he chose to put himself first and expose his very fragile ego. There was a legitimate issue that should have been discussed and debated. That opportunity is lost. Instead, we have the legacy of the events of January 6 and the investigation committee that followed.
“The problem for Trump is that Biden did get more votes and won more states in 2020.”
The problem is Dems have no one other then Biden. current polling is against him. For a number of reasons, including the two wars and third is likely {which could worse than than other two} with a Biden as the Commander in Chief.
And everyone knows about how screw up the Obama admin was, and it’s continuation with his Vice President. Which even Obama had a poor view of him {and, Obama was right [or a prophet} about that}.
Tim s…”The problem for Trump is that Biden did get more votes and won more states in 2020″.
***
Reminding you of some facts. Late on election night, Trump was leading in some key states. Then an unexplained delay in counting occurred overnight and in the morning, Biden was suddenly ahead. It was revealed much later that the Dems had ballot stuffers at work overnight and there were thousands of them, many caught on camera.
A study into the fiasco used cell phone records to form a network of these cheaters, There were thousands of them across the US and some were seen stuffing ballot boxes with handfuls of ballots. There were easily enough to turn the tables overnight.
Furthermore, absentee ballots allowed people to cheat the system. The Dems had people scouring for votes in poor areas by collecting ballots from those who would not use them and converting them into Dem votes. Then there were people from out of state who were somehow allowed to register.
All of this cheating was ignored by the mainstream liberal media and even Democrat judges refused to hear complaints. The biggest blow was the Supreme Court refusing to hear complaints. Due to covid, the scrutineers were kept at an unreasonable distance from election officials and could not see what they were up to. One witness, claimed an unidentified person appeared at a polling booth with a bagful of USB drives and began plugging them into a computer. His complaint was ignored by election officials and went nowhere.
There is little doubt in my mind the last election was rigged.
“There is little doubt in my mind the last election was rigged.”
For which no evidence is present or has been submitted to any court.
–There is little doubt in my mind the last election was rigged.
For which no evidence is present or has been submitted to any court.–
But as is normal many have been convicted of election fraud.
That the election was abnormal, is without doubt and obvious to all and there are good reason to have doubt about the US election.
American people are innocent until proven guilty. The government is guilty until proven innocent.
I don’t think there will be an elected Republican president this year. Gen Z will not allow it.
ent…”So far he has criminal or civil trials coming up for giving hush money to a port star, serial assault, false accounting, conspiracy to rig the Georgia election and sending a mob to stop Congress confirming the election result. I dont know which of them hes guilty of yet, thats a matter for the courts”.
***
The Democrats in the US are so desperate to get rid of Trump, they have created false accusations to entrap him. The Dems in Colorado are so desperate, their Supreme Court, comprised of Democrats have illegally barred Trump from running for office. They based their decision on an unproved claim that Trump incited insurrection at the White House.
All of these charges you have listed were initiated by Democrats of questionable character. I am not inferring that Trump is a saint, he is far from it. But how about Bill Clinton being impeached for lying and being forced to pay out US $800,000 for sexual harassment of an employee? He’s had numerous affairs while married to Hillary Clinton, yet she has shown a lack of class by remaining with him. Yet she had the nerve to run for president. Today, Clinton is making himself wealthy by giving talks as a former President.
Why do people want Trump? He is the only President in a long time who has called a spade a spade. He went after NATO countries for not paying their fair share. He went after illegal immigrants at the US-Mexico border. He actually had the nerve to engage Putin in conversations, a necessity to prevent nuclear war.
The Democrats are so desperate they will stop at nothing to prevent him from running again. Three states have already taken steps to prevent him running. It’s not Trump you should be worried about, it’s people who will subvert democracy to prevent him from running, even if that means corrupting the legal system with false charges.
Grand Solar Minimum update
Another little sideways move, It is now a year of no activity increase,
It will take another year before the Red line misalignment becomes fully apparent
https://i.postimg.cc/XNKZ1hnV/dec23.jpg
In other words, nature proceeds according to its own agenda and we humans are still trying to understand it. Unlike climate alarmists who tell nature how it is proceeding.
You think a year and I am guessing less than 6 months. Or my guess is Jan and later it will average lower than 100 sunspots.
Or averaged line [blue] is now around 125 and 6 months behind us, it seems to it’s at or near it’s peak. Or July higher as is Sept higher than 125, but other 4 are lower. And guessing Jan will be lower than 125, but even much higher or much lower, the next month blue line will still around 125 and then be going down. Or I think blue going fall as fast as it rose from when blue line was at Nov/Dec 22
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
tim f…”Science does not stagnate with the first person that explores an idea! S-B is based on ~ 150 years of experiments. S-B is based on more than just eyes as detectors. S-B is based on more than just hot tungsten or hot platinum”.
***
Tim reveals a basic tenet of climate alarm. Science does not count, you can simply make up science and if enough people agree, it becomes fact.
Where are these experiments that have verified S-B as a universal law covering all temperatures? If an electrically-heated platinum filament wire cannot demonstrate S-B what can?
Where is the experiment that verifies ice emits 315 w/M^2 of energy?
Experiment? Just point an inexpensive Ryobi IR thermometer at a glass of ice water in your kitchen, Gordon. The display will read 32F which complies with S-B.
IR thermometers don’t read in w/m^2 and they have nothing to do with S-B. I have never claimed that ice does not emit an infrared frequency, only that it cannot radiate 315 w/m^2.
IR thermometers work by measuring IR frequencies and correlating the frequency measured to infrared frequencies given off by objects with that temperature in a lab. The IR thermometer tells you nothing about the power or intensity of radiation given off by ice. They tell you nothing about S-B.
IR thermometers work on S-B principles Gordon, so they demonstrate S-B works since 32F is measured by EMR emitted from ice water and displayed on the Ryobi screen in degrees F. 212F will also be displayed from boiling water experimentally.
explain the S-B principles these meters are allegedly based on.
Gordon, “S-B” refers to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is relates the radiant exitance (in W/m2) to the 4th power of temperature (in K).
I have the Fluke 62 MAX which uses the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Fluke has webpage that explains how their IR instruments work.
https://www.flukeprocessinstruments.com/en-us/why-use-pyrometers%3F/what-infrared%3F
bdg…there is nothing in the article to which you link that claims S-B is the basis of an IR thermometer. In fact there is an error in their claims about S-B…
“These relationships were recognized by Stefan and Boltzmann in 1879 and illustrate that an unambiguous temperature can be measured from the radiation signal”.
S-B said no such thing nor did they infer that. Stefan based the equation on an electrically-heated platinum filament in the range of 500C to 1500C. No IR was involved since the Tyndall experiment from which Stefan derived his T^4 relationship involved only visible light frequencies.
a fine web you weave bdgwx. the point here runs to the relationships of peak voltage and a differential of accumulated joules of energy that is prevented from escaping the system by a completely unverified insulation system never seen to actually work. And we deem that to be a ghe when nothing in the comparison is a black body but we use blackbody numbers to confirm there is a ghe. then we blame that ghe on an object that is roughly about 12% of a blackbody and 100% of a convecting gas that experiments show are incapable of warming the areas of the atmosphere where this gas has been responsible for cooling the atmosphere such that even less heat goes to space because its colder and yet it forms hotspots. sounds like political doublespeak to me.
its a example of scientists and their special interests running roughshod over science while they argue they are the experts and we should all listen to them.
we went through a lot of that sort of corruption during virtually the entire first century of our republic. then somebody figured out that an independent civil service would improve the situation. that was followed by nearly a century of unprecedented progress.
then at some point in the last 50 years that independence has been in significant part compromised by a combination of academic special interests superseding the civil service with committees of these special interests holding the purse strings and compromises of civil service employees being corrupted by the promise of golden parachute jobs by the industries profiting on the grift.
essentially it is an identical structure to that of the MIC. . .but this time its been built into an international system of corruption shaming even the efforts of NATO.
Gordon reveals several basic tenets of ‘skeptics’.
* Pretend that science is not tightly interconnected, so that any inconvenient bits can be ignored.
* Pretend that scientists are somehow in on a giant conspiracy — even if they don’t work in the field.
* Demand that others do their research for them — then simply ignore any evidence that goes against their pre-determined conclusions.
Read a text book. Buy an IR thermometer. Check the data for the CMBR. Read the 76 reference at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation . There is your evidence.
tim reveals the alarmist MO. Wave your hands in the air, make ludicrous statements, and find people who will agree with you, and try to make your agreement appear to be science.
Better still, take scientific rebuttals from skeptics, ignore them, and claim they are fabrications from co-conspirators.
Bordo follows a simple recipe.
Gets caught pants down, double down.
Gets caught pants down doubling down, triples down.
And so on and so forth.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark…”You did not differentiate between the natural GHE, the existence of which is not disputed, and the enhanced GHE which has been imputed to burgeoning human industrial activities since the mid-18th century”.
***
I have disputed the GHE as have several skeptics here. You have been unable to rebut our arguments. You come from a position that the GHE has been established and it is up to us to disprove it. It’s the other way around, the GHE has never been proved scientifically and it is up to you to prove its existence.
Good luck. To begin with, you are hampered by the greenhouse label. The claimed GHE has nothing to do with the mechanism underlying real greenhouse warming. Real greenhouses warm simply by solar energy warming air in the greenhouse via conduction from heated soil and surfaces. Infrared energy plays little or no part in the warming of greenhouse air yet IR is the basis of atmospheric greenhouse warming theory.
The analogy betwen a real greenhouse and the atmospheric greenhouse effect is non-existent.
Real greenhouses warm when heated air molecules are trapped by glass. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to trap heated air that is rising. Therefore the atmospheric GHE is based on no known science.
The earthen GHE works when heated air molecules are trapped by gravity, Gordon. All known science, both in the lab and in the wild.
b4…the heated air molecules rise despite gravity. They can’t do that in a real greenhouse because the glass stops them. Where’s the glass in the atmosphere?
Gravity Gordon. The air molecules never gets up enough speed to leave Earth’s greenhouse to space.
Ball4, you dummy, you can’t even describe the greenhouse effect! Babbling about gravity won’t help you, either.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The earthen GHE works when heated air molecules are trapped by gravity, Gordon. All known science, both in the lab and in the wild.”
That’s the same GHE which has cooled the planet over the past four and a half billion years, is it? The same one which cools the surface every night, or another GHE?
Maybe you don’t realise that “heated air molecules” cause warm air to rise – against the force of gravity!
What are you babbling about, you peculiar person? There is no GHE, you donkey. If there was, you would be able to describe it in some way which agrees with reality – but you can’t, of course.
Air molecules rise Swenson but remain trapped by gravity just like in a greenhouse.
Ball4,
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation – “any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.”
You wrote –
“The earthen GHE works when heated air molecules are trapped by gravity, Gordon. All known science, both in the lab and in the wild.”
Do you think the GHE is another name for gravity – or maybe insulation?
You really are a clown – you realise that you have been scammed by the GHE cult, but you don’t want to admit it! That’s why you keep coming out with more and more bizarre nonsense.
Man up. If I become aware of new facts, I change my views. What about you?
Unfortunately Swenson remains in neutral since first post; no Swenson change with new facts observed since beginning of time despite screen name changed.
Ball4,
Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation “any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.”
You wrote
“The earthen GHE works when heated air molecules are trapped by gravity, Gordon. All known science, both in the lab and in the wild.”
Do you think the GHE is another name for gravity or maybe insulation?
You really are a clown you realise that you have been scammed by the GHE cult, but you dont want to admit it! Thats why you keep coming out with more and more bizarre nonsense.
Man up. If I become aware of new facts, I change my views. What about you?
By the way, your ramblings are not facts, just like Gavin Schmidt’s amateurish computer games are not experiments.
“You have been unable to rebut our arguments. ” … because you don’t understand basic science!
“To begin with, you are hampered by the greenhouse label. ” No, we aren’t. Science is about theories and experiments, not labels. You are the one hampered by that label. As shown by your efforts to equate the GHE with trapping of heated air. That is NOT now it works, which you would know if you weren’t focused on labels and weren’t ignorant of basic science.
Tim,
If you are such a fan of science, you should at least be able to describe the GHE in a way that agree with reality.
Here are a couple of bits of reality for – the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, and the surface cools every night. Maybe you could start off “The GHE is a phenomenon which can be observed . . . “, and fill in the rest.
Your earlier attempt to make a GHE claim – “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.” is vague and meaningless, so I’m sure you can come up with something more scientific.
Or you could just keep whining that people like me keep asking you to concentrate on the GHE, rather than continuously trying to change the subject to nonsensical fantasies.
Off you go now Tim, demonstrate your mastery of the scientific method.
tim f …”Science is about theories and experiments, not labels. You are the one hampered by that label. As shown by your efforts to equate the GHE with trapping of heated air”.
***
If the GHE has nothing to do with real greenhouses, why is it called a ‘greenhouse’ theory? You know as well as I do the theory is related to the lame theory that the atmosphere of Venus is caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, meaning the atmosphere is trapping heat like a real greenhouse.
Talk about moving goalposts. You alarmists want to give the impression of the heated air in a real greenhouse as representing our atmosphere but there is no scientific explanation for how it works. Whenever anyone questions you on the theory, successfully rebutting your theories, you move the goalposts and tell us that’s not what it is about.
So, as Swenson has been asking for a long time, what is it about? Thus far, all I have gotten is that the GHE is related to 19th century theories and loose presumption that a trace gas in the atmosphere is magically leading us to doom.
“meaning the atmosphere is trapping heat like a real greenhouse.”
Only you seem to be confused my real greenhouses. The “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is only tangentially related to real physical greenhouses.
“but there is no scientific explanation for how it works.”
Let me fix that for you. There is no scientific explanation that Gordon understands.
You seem to think there is a one sentence explanation that will make everything clear — there isn’t. The GHE is about many things. Solar energy, thermal IR, energy balance, quantum theory of gas molecules, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, lapse rate, blackbody radiation, and more. And climate is related to the GHE … and to albedo, ocean currents, earth’s rotation, Hadley cells, land use, and more.
The “moving goal posts” are not coming from “our side” they are coming from “your side”. I can easily explain the physics behind the GHE, but then there is always a “what about?”.
* What about 4.5 billion years of cooling?
* what about deserts being hot with little water vapor?
* what about PDO?
* what about sunspots?
* what about convection?
* what about the little ice age?
* what about the moon getting hotter than the earth?
* what about my proof that the Green Plate Experiment violates the 2nd Law?
* what about averaging flux?
* What about ice boiling water?
The GHE itself is so simple, any smart high school student can grasp it. But it is only ONE SMALL PIECE of the puzzle. The climate is so complex and chaotic, that the GHE effect itself cannot explain everything.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The GHE itself is so simple, any smart high school student can grasp it.”
Why can’t you or any other cultist describe the GHE if it’s so simple?
Oh wait! You changed your mind, and wrote –
“The GHE is about many things. Solar energy, thermal IR, energy balance, quantum theory of gas molecules, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, lapse rate, blackbody radiation, and more.”
No wonder you can’t describe it – you obviously aren’t as clever as any smart high school student!
You are a pretentious peanut, trying to hide your ignorance.
Carry on.
Here is the basic, idealized physics — which any smart high school student can understand.
A blackbody surface (perfectly insulated on the back and in vacuum) receives a steady flux, F, of visible light (and no other heat or radiation sources). It will reach a steady state temperature of T1 = (F/sigma)^0.25, radiating away thermal IR equal to F.
Now a sheet of material is placed above the surface. This sheet perfectly transmits the visible sunlight, and perfectly absorbs thermal IR. When steady state is achieved now, the SHEET will radiate thermal IR equal to F, so the SHEET will have a temperature T1. The original surface will receive F from the sun and F from the sheet. It will be warmer than before. T2 = (2^0.25 T1) to be specific.
Easy-peasy.
This has all been explained dozens of times before. (In numerous post, Steel Green House, Green Plate Experiment, links to webpages, etc). There is nothing the least controversial here. Every physics prof and every engineering prof in the world would agree.
Now … applying this simple principle to the complex, chaotic, non-idea atmosphere is not easy or straight-forward. But the principle itself is undeniable.
Tim Folkerts claims:
”The original surface will receive F from the sun and F from the sheet. It will be warmer than before. T2 = (2^0.25 T1) to be specific.
Easy-peasy.”
——————————-
Indeed easy-peasy to say but where is the evidence?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim Folkerts claims:
”Every physics prof and every engineering prof in the world would agree.”
——————————–
LOL! And you asked everyone of them right? LMAO! Its pretty easy to see how you got inculcated.
“see how you got inculcated.”
Bill is consistent in calling anyone who has education and expertise that he lacks, in the topic being discussed, ‘inculcated’.
Everyone understands that these ad-hominem attacks simply reflect the weakness of his arguments.
Professionals are very much aware of what inculcation is:
”A lot of teaching is a form of inculcation: teachers repeat information to students, hoping it will sink in.”
A lot of students get by via memorization without understanding. Thats why experience is important. It teaches you the limits of what you memorized.
Most professionals with real jobs even have continuing education requirements to remain licensed.
“And you asked everyone of them right?”
No need. Just like their is no need to ask if F=ma or if PV=nRT or V=IR. There are basic principles in physics. Everyone in the field knows these and how to apply them.
But clearly you have never even asked on of them.
“Thats why experience is important.”
Bill erroneously assumes that his opponents don’t have extensive experience.
Tim,
There might be a Society of Ignorant Nitwits, three members being Tim Folkerts, Willis Eschenbach and Eli Rabbett.
None of the members accept basic mathematics or physics.
For example, Timmy Twinkletoes positively refuses to accept that the intensity of the radiation goes down by the square of the distance from the source. This just means that Timmy’s plate, being heated by his surface, can never reach the temperature of the surface, unless in contact with it, in which case the surface will not increase its temperature, anyway.
Then Timmy decides that a cooler object can heat a hotter one! Well, he says, it’s only a little bit cooler.
Willis goes a little further, and claims that two spheres of different radii have the same surface area, amongst other silliness.
Eli Rabbett suffers from similar ignorance – plus more.
There is no greenhouse effect. The Earth has cooled, currently losing about 44TW. The surface ever. There are many ignorant nitwits who refuse to accept reality.
more troubleshooting…
walter…the Republicans, like the Conservatives in Canada, are their own worst enemy. They tend to mire themselves in age-old economic philosophies that are better-suited to 19th century economics than current needs.
Unless the Tories and Republicans change their policies to address poverty and general health as no-fault situations I fear they are condemned to lengthy periods in opposition. The idea that people are poor or sick out of their own life choices is seriously out-dated.
The notion of individuality in this day and age does not cut it. No man can be an island unto himself these days unless he lives way out in the bush fending for himself. We depend far too much on each other and that means paying taxes for infrastructure, services, and helping out the poor, sick, and disenfranchised.
The US seems currently split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans need to get it that no one, especially the poor and disenfranchised, is going to swing toward their way of life. They need to change their policies to include people rather than excluding them.
They are fortunate that the Democrats are going through a period of serious stoopidity, a situation brought on by special interest group who are short on intelligence. If Kennedy manages to get people behind him, the Republicans can be expected to languish in obscurity for some time.
Kennedy is no socialist. his basic policies are straight from the free enter.prise manual. However, he understands people and their needs and seems willing to adjust his policies to suit. Any smart capitalists should follow suit.
tim f…”As I said, a continuous curve has a derivative at each point on the curve
That is simply not the definition of continuous in calculus. Intuitively, continuous means you never have to lift your pencil to draw the function.
f(x) = |x| is continuous but has no derivative at x = 0.”
***
Calculus is based on the limit, a concept that leads to a derivative. The derivative defines the slope of a tangent line on any point of a continuous curve. If there is any discontinuity in the curve at any point, there can be no tangent line or derivative at such points.
I don’t care what intuition tells us, calculus has definite rules that are very precise, and continuity is one such rule.
The function f(x) = |x} tells us the value inside the bars | | is absolute, meaning it must always be positive. That means for every x, y must have a positive value.
The function f(x) = x on the other hand means for every x there is an equal value of y. Therefore it represents a straight line going through x = 0 and equidistant on a diagonal for the x an y axes.
f(x) = x therefore is a continuous function. It’s derivative is always 1, meaning the slope of a tangent line is 1 and always inline with the function.
f(x) = |x| has the following values around x = 0…
x = -2 -1 0 1 2….
y = 2 1 0 1 2…
Therefore the function is a diagonal like f(x) = x for x > 0 at 45 degrees wrt the +ve x-axis in the +ve y direction and a diagonal line at 45 degrees to the x-axis for x < 0 extending in the -ve x direction and the +ve y direction. In other words, it resembles a 'v' with the vertex at 0,0.
Such a function is non-continuous at 0,0 although it exists. It can have no derivative at 0,0 because it has no continuity and no tangent there.
Is it not apparent what Binny has done with his amateur graph? He has simply joined the dots while drawing in pseudo-curves. Had Roy simply joined the dots with his data points in the UAH graph above he would have accomplished something similar, But Roy is a professional and has applied a smoothing function to represent the red curve imposed on the data as a 13 month running average. That's why his running average is smooth and continuous, even though there is likely no function that could represent it.
Perhaps one day Bordo will open a book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function#History
Willard,
From your dubious appeal to authority –
“All three of those nonequivalent definitions of pointwise continuity are still in use.”
Which one are you unhappy with Gordon using, and why?
Have you beclowned yourself again? Maybe you should read what you quote before you quote it.
In any case, what has this to do with your statement that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
[not she sharpest tool in the shed, is Willard]
Mike Flynn,
What makes you think that Bordo used any of them?
In fact, what makes you think?
I was amused by Swenson’s comment. Thanks for confirming what I have been saying.
“Augustin-Louis Cauchy defined continuity of y = f ( x ) y=f(x) as follows: an infinitely small increment α \alpha of the independent variable x always produces an infinitely small change f ( x + α ) − f ( x ) f(x+\alpha )-f(x) of the dependent variable y…”
I spent an entire post recently explaining [f(x + h) = f(x)]/h to someone, was it Ark, who is confused about the difference between delta x and dx. Delta x is a longer, finite interval whereas dx is an infinitesimal interval, if it can be called that. The point is to reduce delta x to zero to arrive at a limiting value for y.
The basis of differential calculus as related to the above equation is…
dy/dx = limit as h -> 0 [f(x + h) = f(x)]/h and that is the same as stating…
dy/dx = limit as h-> 0 (delta y/delta x)
Note that f(x) is the y value corresponding to the x value in a function.
None of this can exist if there is a discontinuity in the function. That’s the message in your link article. If the relationship between x and y changes abruptly in the function, the continuity is broken and the x,y relationship no longer exists as before.
Continuity is not only a reference to a line or curve, it is the continuous relationship between x and y in a function, which is a unique relationship between x and y. There is no such relationship in Binny’s curves.
If you look at Roy’s graph above, there can be no continuity stated since the graph is comprised of discrete points which have no continuous relationship between x and y. Roy has included a red running average curve which has created at quasi-continuous function which help visualize the short term trends in the data. I find it very useful because it helps me to instantly see the trends and visually average them over the longer term..
However, even if the running average is continuous I see no constant relationship between x and y, therefore, using calculus to determine the area under the curve would be a major chore. If the curve was a pure sine wave it would be easy since the equation y = sinx can be differentiated.
> None of this can exist if there is a discontinuity in the function. Thats the message in your link article.
That is pure BS, Bordo. An encyclopedic entry does not simply have a main message. The main message I was conveyed with my quote was that there are many different concepts of continuity. You failed them all.
Do continue.
Gordon expounds: “calculus has definite rules that are very precise, and continuity is one such rule.”
Yes. Unfortunately, you don’t understand those definite rules.
_ is not differentiable and not continuous
V is not differentiable but is continuous
“I dont care what intuition tells us”
Apparently you do — at least when it comes to your own intuition. You seem to think these two terms are synonymous, but they are not. Go grab your old calculus text. Go google “continuous function”. Go ask a math professor.
tim…I gave you clear cut explanations of my version. All you offer in returns are vague inferences. Your definition of continuity is something I’d expect from a grade schooler, someone who thinks joining dots to form a line is continuity.
Calculus won’t work without continuous functions. An integral cannot be formed without a continuous function unless the range over which it is applicable is stated. You will see integral ranges stated as 0 -> infinity, or -pi to +pi. Within that range they must have derivatives to operate on and a derivative implies a tangent line at any point on the curve. If a discontinuity is introduced, the tangent line or derivative no longer applies and any new curve starting there must be redefined with new derivatives.
To get around that, equations must be stated with ranges over which thy are applicable if they are not continuous. Some equations are not valid at x = 0 or when x reaches infinity. Therefore the equations are accompanied by disclaimers to that effect.
What Binny presented was a mish-mosh of dots joined by lines and partial curves between dots generated by an algorithm. Claiming tangential values with such non-continuous curves is not acceptable. If no one commented on the bs that comes out of Binny, he’d fill the blog with his ruminations. He takes on RLH (Richard), who is clearly conversant with statistical theory, and tries to belittle him using sheer nonsense.
Why you are defending him is not clear.
“timI gave you clear cut explanations of my version. ”
And your clear cut explanation is wrong! Your definition of continuity is something I would expect from a “C” student in Calc I. And you don’t even know my definition — I gave an intuitive *description* to help along a “C” student.
You don’t get top have your own personal “version” of calculus. Why you are defending your wrong explanation is not clear.
There is a character missing. The line: “_ is not differentiable and not continuous” should have had an ‘overscore’ after the underscore. I.e. a step function. Maybe this will work (but won’t know until after I submit):
_‾ is not differentiable and not continuous
” Is it not apparent what Binny has done with his amateur graph?
*
Apparently, the ‘Bindidon says:’ muleta is of such a much deeper red than the NOAA muleta that the Robertson ignoramus overlooked the NOAA seal in
https://i.postimg.cc/vBKGq3JH/nino34-Mon311223.png
The ‘tangential slope’ was meant as that of the curve passing through the points of the ‘forecast ensemble mean’ compared to that same curve in
https://i.postimg.cc/bNcZqw5Y/nino34-Mon190623.png
People like Robertson never understand such simple things.
*
” He has simply joined the dots while drawing in pseudo-curves. Had Roy simply joined the dots with his data points in the UAH graph above he would have accomplished something similar. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
*
” But Roy is a professional and has applied a smoothing function to represent the red curve imposed on the data as a 13 month running average. ”
Here is one of ‘Binny’s many ‘amateur’ graphs:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y4wuDHZ-tw7zZGQagxuX0b8OkWLneLKP/view
In some imaginary world, perhaps Robertson would keep a bit more humble and first learn to make such graphs before he discredits other people’s work.
But… in this real world, it will never happen.
[Gordon Robertson] Therefore the atmospheric GHE is based on no known science.
Unbeknownst to you, the GHE is based on the physics of the relatively great transparency of the atmosphere for shortwave radiation in comparison to a smaller transparency for longwave emission. Such that, the mean radiation balance at the earth’s surface is a positive value.
“the GHE is based on the physics of the relatively great transparency of the atmosphere for shortwave radiation in comparison to a smaller transparency for longwave emission. Such that, the mean radiation balance at the earths surface is a positive value.”
–
How it happens? There is also the night. There is not any shortwave radiation at night.
–
Maybe you mean that during day hours surface inevitable accumulates more energy, than solar flux provides?
Because less energy is emitted out of Earth’s system, than enters Earth’s system?
–
But doesn’t always a quasi equilibrium being acheeved. The rise of temperature vs the rise of Earth’s system energy emission?
–
In other words, the warmer the planet, the more energy the planet emits?
–
Does’t that eventually keep surface temperature at equilibrium levels?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Arkady,
That makes no sense at all, if you are trying to imply that the GHE results in heating.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, unless you can prove otherwise.
The surface cools every night.
Do you live in a fantasy, where reality is an unwelcome intruder?
You can’t even describe the GHE, so saying it’s “based on” something is just silly!
Carry on – nothing wrong with a bit of comic relief.
ark’s theory is typical of the bafflegab offer by alarmists. Long on words, short on scientific fact.
I have challenged Ark to provided a scientific explanation of the GHE and this is all he offers, vague utterings with no scientific content.
If this is all you have, so be it. I am sure, if there is a real theory involved, it can be explained far more descriptively. I won’t hold my breath.
ball4…”Air molecules rise Swenson but remain trapped by gravity just like in a greenhouse”.
***
Ball4 is admitting that the atmosphere is heated by oxygen and nitrogen that make up 99% of the air molecules he calls a greenhouse. We know from science, namely the Ideal Gas Law, and the thermal diffusivity equation that a trace gas like CO2 can add no more than 0.06% of the heat in the atmosphere.
I would not call that a greenhouse effect since there is no roof. The air molecules, heated at the surface, and mainly in the Tropics, rise as high as the replacement cooler air from aloft can help push them. Eventually, the air will become so thin that any heat from the surface will be naturally dissipated. As air thins, it loses heat naturally.
On the other hand, a real greenhouse will retain it’s heat as long as solar energy is heating it.
Gordon 8:34 pm, that’s laughable, our atm. is not heated by O2, N2 – our atm. is heated by the sun burning a fuel.
Also, CO2 “can add no more than 0.06% of the heat” since atm. CO2 burns no fuel and CO2 is also heated by the sun burning a fuel.
As you write: “The atm. air molecules, heated at the surface, and mainly in the Tropics, rise as high as” they can until the rising air equilibrates with surroundings just like in a greenhouse at its roof.
As in a real greenhouse, our atm. will retain its thermodynamic internal energy on global avg. 288K near the surface as long as solar energy is heating it. Over time, with added ppm IR active gas, the sun will force that surface global avg. T to rise monotonically about .01-.02C per year with that T responding in addition to about 10 other cyclical forcings.
Ball4, you dimwit, after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth’s surface has cooled!
You can reject reality as hard as you like – reality doesn’t care.
The Earth is slowly cooling. Man made heat causes ephemeral temperature increases.
Try harder.
Swenson is simply proven mistaken by the global avg. temperature measured actually rising in the top post. Swenson obviously doesn’t change when the avg. temperature facts change. The Earth surface is on track to be molten again!
yep each morning it gets on that track. lmao!
Earth has always been a large molten nuclear reactor.
Ball4 you nitwit, thermometers respond to heat, not any mythical “greenhouse effect”.
If you disagree, you might like to support your view with a fact or two.,
Real thermometers respond to nothing mythical, however they do respond to increase or decrease in air temperature which Swenson 12:23am thereby denies. Pity.
From the alternative universe of B4…”Gordon 8:34 pm, thats laughable, our atm. is not heated by O2, N2 our atm. is heated by the sun burning a fuel.
Also, CO2 can add no more than 0.06% of the heat since atm. CO2 burns no fuel and CO2 is also heated by the sun burning a fuel”.
***
The Sun emits no heat other than heated proton and electrons that form the solar wind. The heating effect on Earth related to solar energy is produced when EM from the Sun is absorbed by atoms/molecules on Earth and converted to heat. Therefore it is mass that produces heating if it absorbs and converts solar EM.
Heat, by itself, cannot travel through the space between Sun and Earth. There is nothing to transport it since that space is largely devoid of the particles required for heat transfer via convection. Heat conduction is out of the question, leaving radiation, which carries no heat in the form of thermal energy. One might claim it carries a potential heating agent but it’s still not heat.
Sorry, but the CO2 in your alarmist theory is claimed to be heated by surface radiation. I am sure it is also heated by incoming solar but that would contravene your alarmist theories and through the energy budget hilarity for a spin.
ent…”IPCC estimate that 106% of the observed temperature rise is due to AGW”.
***
The IPCC are charlatans who use inferences like ‘estimate’, ‘likelihood’, and ‘projection’ in lieu of actual hard science. Their sources are all alarmist literature these days.
Nowhere in IPCC jargon will you find a scientific explanation of the GHE or how a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming /climate change. The IPCC are nothing more than yes-men for their masters the UN and all the lying member countries who support the alarmist pseudo-science.
Any organization with integrity would have called for input from both skeptics and alarmists. However, the IPCC has only a mandate to find evidence of anthropogenic warming. Since there is no evidence for it, the IPCC manufactures evidence.
Come on, Bordo.
An estimate is not a form of inference. You keep denying the obvious just to induce commenters to correct you. For instance, the IPCC cites many contrarians. Its documentation contains many descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
Give it a rest.
where? many? list as many as can find with a complete physics description quantifying the process of cold co2 warming a warmer surface. i see none.
Why would anyone do Gill’s homework?
Junior, Judy, Nic, the Auditor, Roy, JC. The list goes on and on.
Even Tony has been cited!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wouldnt be silly enough to appeal to the authority of the IPCC saying this, would you – “Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside.”?
Unlike you, the IPCC realises that the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, and emits it in all directions. Of course, the atmosphere is colder than the surface, and cannot make it any hotter. That would be ridiculous!
The IPCC is cunning, and specifically fails to mention what this mythical “greenhouse effect” is supposed to do.
Babbling about the glass walls of a greenhouse is just diversionary nonsense. Steel shipping containers can reach over 60 C inside, no glass walls required.
Carry on being obsessed with greenhouses,
Mike Flynn,
Your comment seems on the wrong page.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wouldn’t be silly enough to appeal to the authority of the IPCC saying this, would you “Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside.”?
Unlike you, the IPCC realises that the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, and emits it in all directions. Of course, the atmosphere is colder than the surface, and cannot make it any hotter. That would be ridiculous!
The IPCC is cunning, and specifically fails to mention what this mythical greenhouse effect is supposed to do.
Babbling about the glass walls of a greenhouse is just diversionary nonsense. Steel shipping containers can reach over 60 C inside, no glass walls required.
Carry on being obsessed with greenhouses,
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“the IPCC saying this”
Where?
Christos Vournas
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586155
“How it happens? There is also the night. There is not any shortwave radiation at night.”
I don’t know about you, but at my location, nighttime temperatures never approach the temperature of space (-270 C).
Nighttime radiant energy flux is lower than daytime, in fact negative, but moderated by the atmosphere’s GHGs.
Indeed Ark, the earth does not get as cold as the moon, but it also doesn’t get as hot as the moon.
Bill,
Spot on. People like Ark babble about GHGs, which they can’t actually describe, except to say that the gases in an actual greenhouse are somehow not greenhouse gases.
Something similar to someone claiming that cooling results in an increase in temperature.
Or possibly someone silly enough to write “Nighttime radiant energy flux is lower than daytime, in fact negative.” Oh, that would be the silly Ark, who might complain that he really meant to write something else, but had a fit of incompetent sloppiness.
Somewhere upthread, Robertson once more has shown his mix of arrogance and ignorance, by claiming:
” I have read the papers to which you refer, going so far as to translate them from German, in the case of Mayer, and I found nothing about spinning planets. The truth is that Mayer does not discuss a rotating Moon in his works.
Binny is so deluded on this subject he has to fabricate meaning from these people that is simply not there. ”
*
Robertson’s claim is an utter lie: he never was able to translate anything – neither from French nor from German let alone from Latin.
*
I have shown many times that Tobias Mayer published in 1750 a treatise
http://tinyurl.com/Mayer-treatise
in wich he explained how he computed, on the basis of a 1.5 years long observation of the Moon
– the lunar rotation period about its polar axis, and
– the latter’s inclination wrt the Ecliptic.
Here is the translation of the treatise’s title and chapter headings:
http://tinyurl.com/3cxvz9p6
In chapter 14, anyone who can read 18th century German can see the lunar spin period which Mayer, as a well educated astronomer, knew how to perfectly compute.
He even considered the fact that through Earth’s 26500 year precession period, the First Point of Aries he used as celestial reference for the seleno-centric longitudes was not perfectly fixed but apparently moved by 50 arc seconds per year, what led him to add a correction of 6 seconds and 49 sixtieth of a second to the spin period.
*
Robertson moreover endlessly tried to discredit Mayer’s work but without success – especially when he stûpidly claimed that Mayer’s treatise would not deal with Moon’s rotation but solely with libration (this word occurs only once in the whole 130 pages long treatise – in the treatise’s introduction).
*
What matters most here is not so much whether or not the Moon spins about its axis, but to show Robertson’s incompetence and readiness to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
**
Finally , it’s easy
– to discredit Mayer’s work as ‘academic exercise’
or
– to write non-committing sentences like:
” That’s centuries old stuff’, Tesla knew it better. ”
But those who claim such utter nonsense should then explain how Mayer’s lunar spin period can so exactly match the period computed nowadays using Lunar Laser Ranging instead of a small telescope enhanced with a micrometer.
Binny,
You wrote –
“What matters most here is not so much whether or not the Moon spins about its axis, but to show Robertsons incompetence and readiness to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.”
Please stop trolling.
troubleshooting failed post…
wee willy referred me to the general IPCC page as proof of anthropogenic warming.
I have read through the entire report and nowhere in it do they supply scientific proof of an anthropogenic cause of global warming. The closest they come is as follows…
1)19th century scientists theorized it is possible…
2)There was an up.tick in warming following the Industrial Era. The IPCC has claimed the Industrial up.tick in CO2 production has caused the warming. In doing so, they have completely ignored the fact that the Little Ice Age peaked during the industrial era and p.e.t.e.r.e.d out about 100 years afterward, circa 1850, when the IPCC claimed the current warming started.
The IPCC supplied no proof that an increase in CO2 levels caused the warming and they have gotten seriously obtuse by ignoring the LIA and claiming it occurred only in Europe.
To get that, one has to admit it possible for Europe’s average temperature to have declined 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet remains at an elevated average temperature.
> I have read through the entire report and nowhere in it do they supply scientific proof of an anthropogenic cause of global warming.
Cool story, Bordo.
Have you noticed how it’s impossible to validate it?
I mean, it should be obvious to any astute reader that you did not RTFRs.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
What can be said about this intergovernmental panel?
I could say some things about it, which would not seem very favorable regarding it.
But it seems it’s possible that some people could be kind cheerleaders of this sort of thing and want to characterize it, in some charitable manner.
Such as giving a list of what it has done.
Or perhaps mention the notable persons which have involved with this task they have been assigned.
Like perhaps, they have tried to be very objective and reasonable??
Or something?
Test – NOAA
Test – NASA
Test – GISS
Test – Had.CRUT
this is not a kids playground Twerpy
You’re being slow on the uptake, Eboy.