Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2024 was +0.93 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the January, 2024 anomaly of +0.86 deg. C, and equaling the record high monthly anomaly of +0.93 deg. C set in October, 2023.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
A new monthly record high temperature was set in February for the global-average ocean, +0.91 deg. C.
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +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 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-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:
I suppose I should leap in and ask Willard to stop trolling before he starts, but I won’t.
And I say Flynnson is the very first one who should stop tr0lling all the time but for sure he won’t.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet.
Good to see there wasn’t much of a delay.
A bit warmer than I expected given the ERA data, but that did depend on the last few days.
This marks 9 months in a row, where the monthly record has been broken. In this case the record for February was broken by more than 0.2C.
The top ten warmest Februaries are now
1 2024 0.93
2 2016 0.71
3 2020 0.60
4 1998 0.49
5 2017 0.31
6 2010 0.30
7 2019 0.22
8 2021 0.20
9 2002 0.14
10 2003 0.09
2018, and 2023 are tied with 2003 for tenth place.
Before 2023, February 2016 was the highest anomaly of all months. March 2016 was the second highest at 0.65C. Now February 2016 is only the 7th highest anomaly.
Of the top ten highest anomalies, 8 where made in the last year.
Year Month Anomaly
1 2023 10 0.93
2 2024 2 0.93
3 2023 11 0.91
4 2023 9 0.90
5 2024 1 0.86
6 2023 12 0.83
7 2016 2 0.71
8 2023 8 0.70
9 2016 3 0.65
10 2023 7 0.64
I don’t think record breakers are the best way to assess warming. But it’s pretty clear it has been unusually warm in the last 8 months.
My simple statistical model – that was completely wrong last year, is currently predicting 2024 as being 0.64 +/- 0.21C, with a greater than 90% chance of setting a record.
I doubt the odds are that high, as this is a very unusual situation, and I still expect the El Nino effects will more quickly than usual.
What does your statistical model look like?
Pause wise – the trend from October 2015 is now 0.16C / decade, and the trend over the last 6 years is 0.60C / decade.
The trend since the start of Monckton’s “Great Pause” is now pretty much identical with the overall trend at around 0.15C / decade.
Do not put your faith in cherry-picked short term deviations in trends.
That’s why the Monckton Pause receives so much ridicule here.
The 13 month running mean keeps on rising and breaking records. Now 0.2 C above the old record. How high will it go?
Nate,
You wrote –
“How high will it go?”
Have you an answer? Have you asked a climate scientist or fortune teller, or are you just hammering away on your keyboard trying to appear intelligent?
The future is unknowable.
“The future is unknowable.”
Not really. I can predict with confidence that very soon you will mention something about the state of the Earth 4.5 Billion years ago.
And that factoid will, again, tell us absolutely nothing about the current global climate trajectory.
Nate says:
”Not really. I can predict with confidence that very soon you will mention something about the state of the Earth 4.5 Billion years ago.”
Indeed Nate we see you predicting with confidence the direction of chaotic systems on a regular basis.
Gill is an astrologer who can’t predict seasons. ROFL.
And prediction was highly accurate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1637579
“You still havent managed to describe this mythical greenhouse effect. What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I was expecting a February anomaly of +0.90 °C. +0.93 °C is bunkers.
Good job.
I have to credit where it is due. Nice job.
Arkady, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
M
O
N
K
T
O
N
P
A
W
S
Does your propagandist gobbledygook have some meaning?
You could beg more questions than your comments word count, Troglodyte:
https://newrepublic.com/post/178602/pa-man-decapitates-father-video-uprising-biden-regime
Only Lord Puzzler knows what he means.
W
You would make Fernando proud.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wiltard practices the philosophy of Pride, Anger, Envy, and Sloth.
You miss three, Troglodyte.
Who said “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” and pleaded the fifth more than 450 times?
Is that the best you can do?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I haven’t observed the other three but if you say so.
Moral qualities aren’t observable entities, Troglodyte.
Here’s what’s observable:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-biden-obama-b2506194.html
Marxist/Fascist ideology is easily observable.
Troglodyte can recognize his own:
https://goad.substack.com/p/getting-kicked-out-of-the-trump-event
Empty vessels make the loudest noise,Plato.
Fake skeptics fall for fake quotes.
Wiltard believes that moral qualities aren’t observable. He’s a genius!
Troglodyte projects his moral judgements into his perceptions.
Priceless.
You think you speak for Western culture. You hate Western culture. Marxist.
You think your mind probes do not carry a cost, Troglodyte:
https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3kn7qq6z7nc2m
apparently he punched some low life that offered his daughter cocaine at a party in a las vegas hotel. the guy went down and hit his head on a coffee table. sounds like justified accidental homicide. but his hands may be registered as deadly weapons considering he was a professional wrestler.
Apparently Gill says stuff.
No wonder he and Troglodyte are reviving Hoovers playbook;
https://theconversation.com/president-trump-revives-j-edgar-hoovers-tyrannical-playbook-128730
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another big bump. Not surprising, given the very warm ocean temperatures lately. El Nino and global warming are a nasty mix. With that big fire in TX, which is still still out of control as I writre, Some folks in West Texas might realize things may get even worse in future years. Think they will still vote for Trumpy?
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents.
There is no artifact of Trump in any climate data.
Only the seriously deluded think they can fight climate change. Only a mo ro n would decide their vote on the basis of fighting climate change.
El Nino and global warming are a nasty mix.
There’s no nasty mix; warming is a good thing. We also are unsure what is really behind the spike.
El Nino and global warming are behind the spike.
b,
El Nino is a pattern of historical weather observations. Just a name for a set of numbers.
Didn’t you know that?
The spike started in May and rose more than half a degree until September; there is no way those variables alone can fully account for that, not even close.
Yep. ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.
b,
El Nino is a pattern of historical weather observations. Just a name for a set of numbers.
Didnt you know that?
That’s laughably absurd. You can’t explain climate change with just two variables.
> Thats laughably absurd.
1. Denial.
***
> You cant explain climate change with just two variables.
See above.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain”
Hmmm. The N. Hemisphere Atlantic stepped up very high early last year for some unknown reason, which cannot have been ENSO.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
click N. Atlantic.
Willard,
The 2016 El Nio reached a high of 0.71, while the 1998 El Nio reached a high of 0.62. The 2016 El Nio was very strong (2.6 ONI index), and the 1998 El Nio was also very strong (2.4 ONI index). However, the current one is less intense (~2.0 ONI index). Despite this, the sea surface temperature anomaly is more than 0.2 higher than the previous peak. Notably, the current El Nio started peaking last spring, well before the normal timeframe, and peaked in the fall without rising above that level since. There is a possibility of breaking the previous record, but the sustained nature of the current conditions is unusual.
Explain this phenomenon with just those ENSO and global warming, LOL.
“Despite this, the sea surface temperature anomaly is more than 0.2 higher than the previous peak.”
global, not sea surface.
walter: Thats laughably absurd. You cant explain climate change with just two variables.
First…I didn’t say climate change could be explained with just 2 variables. What I said is “Yep. ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.”
Second…I stand by what I said. In my model only two variables is all that is need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. It is proof that it can be done.
And don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say two variables can explain all of the UAH TLT changes. I didn’t say the variables that my model uses are the best. I didn’t say that there aren’t other factors. There are an infinite number of things I didn’t actually say. So make sure if you want to challenge something make sure I actually said it first.
https://i.imgur.com/bil9W22.png
Bdgwx boldly claims that a mere two variables are responsible for the spike, only to then attempt a desperate retreat into the comforting embrace of his laughably simplistic model featuring a grand total of five variables.
Monkey Man goes so far as to deny what he can see with his own eyes, implying that every variable in a model must be explanatory.
LOL
Willard, it’s clear to any reader that the assertion regarding the sole drivers behind the spike being global warming and El Nio didn’t originate from me. This oversimplified attribution tends to surface frequently in climate science discussions.
Monkey Man it’s clear that you keep using a formal apparatus that you do not master very well.
Patience, grasshopper.
walter, It’s hardly a bold claim. Others, including Dr. Spencer, have said as much.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/weak-el-nino-conditions-help-explain-recent-global-warmth/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
bdgwx is a monkey.
The learning! Oh, the learning!
LOL
I know. How can anyone expect to learn if they disregard the most important element of climate – unpredictability?
“walter, Its hardly a bold claim. Others, including Dr. Spencer, have said as much.”
What holds true in 2020 cannot be assumed to not hold true in 2023, even if you do endorse what Dr. Spencer said in that link.
*cannot be assumed to hold true*
Is there any unpredictability in Monkey Man’s talking points?
walter, There’s no reason why total heat uptake and ENSO would not be contributing in 2023. The real question is whether there are additional factors that were unique to 2023. The fact that this El Nino is a bit more atypical in its timing suggests a new factor could be playing a minor role. But there are always other factors playing a minor role. Those minor factors obviously help determine the exact magnitude of the spikes…ya know…whether it ends at 0.93 or 0.90 or some other specific value. But those minor factors don’t explain the spikes like how the two primary factors do.
Nate brought up the anomalous North Atlantic anomaly above; there’s a potentially big variable. Plus, El Nio doesn’t start its impact in May; it starts in the autumn. So the spike arrived way too early for this to be classified as El Nio timing. Overall heat uptake would not be a primary factor for such an anomalous event; it would be a small contributor because this is weather, not climate.
“brought up the anomalous North Atlantic anomaly above;”
*the unusual North Atlantic anomaly above*
“So the spike arrived way too early for this to be classified as El Nio timing.”
*classified as abnormal El Nio timing*
The ENSO response in the UAH TLT layer typical lags ENSO itself by 4-5 months. It is always impacting temperature; just with a lag. The Feb value is loosely associated with ENSO from Sep or Oct. El Nino was strong at this time so we expected the spike to be strong.
What may be atypical this time is the timing of the spike. It had an onset earlier and with a magnitude higher than expected. You can see from my model that the 13m GAT is just barley on the uncertainty envelope. Just going by prior expectations we cannot eliminate the possibility that one of the next few months this year hits higher than 0.93 C. However, with the early onset its possible the dip occurs earlier as well. We’ll have to see how that plays out in the near future.
Regardless, total heat uptake and the ENSO explain even this recent spike both in terms of timing and magnitude reasonably well. Had you been tracking my (and many others) posts you would have seen that we were warning people that new records were going to occur sooner rather than later. We’re also now saying that a drop will occur sooner rather than later now that ENSO is waning. Refer to the graphic I posted above.
walter: “it’s clear to any reader that the assertion regarding the sole drivers behind the spike being global warming and El Nio…”
What was actually said: “ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.”
swannie…is it necessary to remind readers that you think heat can be transferred naturally from cold to hot?
No, it’s not “necessary” since I don’t hold to that simplistic view. gordo still can’t fathom that thermal IR radiation results in energy transfer between bodies. In the classic engineering radiation heat transfer situation, two bodies with different temperatures will exhibit said energy transfer in both directions, the net energy transfer is always from hot to cold when both bodies have similar surface emissivities.
Gordo never learns, on purpose…
Mr. Swanson,
not only will I vote for Mr. Trump, I have sent him $2,000 and intend to send more.
Hopefully the temp will stay high and we will avoid the ice and snow in the future as we did this winter.
Best wishes to someone who says it believes mankind can control such, but is busy consuming many products using hydrocarbons to improve its life.
Lewis Guignard
Union Grove, NC
come visit
YES Mr. Swanson.
Absolutely.
And I send him money.
Hopefully it will stay warm and we will avoid the ice and snow in winter as we did this year.
Didn’t use near as much firewood as in the past.
So keep using those petroleum distillate dependent products to improve your life.
According to some it makes the weather warmer.
Its only weather.
Its only less than a miserly +1 degree.
Its obviously due to a fault with the sensors.
Its obviously due to somebody faking the data.
Its obviously due to interference by Michael Mann, NASA and the UN.
Its obviously done to damage Trump in an election year.
It’s mainly due to the massive amount of water injected into the stratosphere by the 2022 underwater Tongan eruption.
Ayuh. The only other plausible explanation is weakening earth magnetic field.
DMT,
if you say so.
I believe thermometers respond to heat. Maybe Im wrong.
One thing we know for certain, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
Deniers all agree on what it ISNT.
And all with great certainty, they fail to agree on what it IS.
From the data that’s been collected, we believe it is within historical natural temperature variability that’s been observed in previous interglacial periods.
“we believe ”
So you speak for all deniers?
How Warm Are the Oceans on the Icy Moons? The Ice Thickness Provides a Clue.
https://www.universetoday.com/165986/how-warm-are-the-oceans-on-the-icy-moons-the-ice-thickness-provides-a-clue/
“Scientists are discovering that more and more Solar System objects have warm oceans under icy shells. The moons Enceladus and Europa are the two most well-known, and others like Ganymede and Callisto probably have them too. Even the dwarf planet Ceres might have an ocean. But can any of them support life? That partly depends on the water temperature, which strongly influences the chemistry.”
Also links to:
Ice-Ocean Interactions on Ocean Worlds Influence Ice Shell Topography
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023JE008036
walter…”We also are unsure what is really behind the spike”.
***
Mark twain addressed that when he claimed…’there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’. The spike is a lie as a representation of global temperatures. That’s not to say UAH is lying, they are simply the messengers of a statistical average that has no meaning.
This spike is the result of a statistical anomaly, nothing more. Here in the Vancouver, Canada area, there has been no indication that even a slight warming is going on.
I was just out walking in the late afternoon and there is a chill in the air typical of a winter’s day. I was out a couple of days ago with a wind blowing in from slightly north of west and I needed to be bundled up with a toque covered with my hoodie, a thick, quilted jacket, and thermal long johns under my sweats.
There is no Arctic air happening and our night time temperatures are below 0C at night. That is cold for this part of the world.
I agree with what you write, Gordon. I believe my location will be one of the warmest grid points on the map, but we didn’t experience any unusual weather last monthjust many more days in the 50s and 40s, with not very many at or below freezing, which is more typical. Historically speaking, milder temperatures here are not unusual; there were months in the 50s, 60s, and 70s with mild temperatures seen most of the month. That’s exactly what we had.
The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged. I would prefer using frequency distribution charts to better see temperature range and variability. With averages, many different days can derive the same average, which is problematic.
Many people place too much importance on using y=mx+b; climate is far too nonlinear, and I keep reminding people that what we are experiencing now could very well just be some kind of temporary 20-30 year elevated blip from a cooling trend. Who knows? The climate will do whatever it does; Swenson correctly says that you cannot use the past to predict the future.
I am a simple man, not a climate scientist or any kind of scientist at all, but quantitatively oriented. So, my question for all of you is this. If for each human on the planet I allocate a surface area of 780 feet by 780 feet to occupy with all the other creatures of the Earth and all the plants and other forms of life that occupy the Earth, can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way? This is a pretty big area, over 14 acres about a dozen football fields. Is my reducing this question all you debate over to this simple question silly. Don’t disregard the word”lasting” in my question.
“can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way? This is a pretty big area, over 14 acres about a dozen football fields.”
Yes apparently so, when you consider how easily humans can alter their surroundings.
Even hundreds of years ago, humans were able to deforest large swaths of Europe and N. America, for the timber and to create farms.
To say that a number seems too big to you, is in the category of ‘argument by incredulity’.
It is your incredulity, but that in itself, is not an argument.
Since what seems incredible to you is just a personal gut feeling and others may not find it incredible at all.
Can you demonstrate any situation where human activity has altered climate other than UHI?
Local temperature has demonstrably been altered by urban heat island effect. UHI is too small to affect climate on a global and lasting scale.
Humans created the Ozone Hole, which increased UV radiation over a wide area.
Humans created the conditions that led to the Dust Bowl, by plowing up the prairie grass, with its deep roots, and replacing it with shallow rooted crops over a vast area of the Great Plains.
And all the evidence together is quite strong that humans have created AGW.
“Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.”
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.
Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.”
No disagreement. But without human contribution, as described, there would also would have been no Dust Bowl.
Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.”
No disagreement. But without human contribution, as described, there also would have been no Dust Bowl.
Nate,
“Humans created the Ozone Hole, which increased UV radiation over a wide area.”
Well, no, they didn’t.
Ozone is created at the top of the atmosphere by high energy UV interacting with oxygen. The only way for this high energy UV to reach the surface is remove any oxygen (or any other matter it may interact with) from its path.
You are a gullible wee soul, aren’t you? If you look at the angle of incidence of the Suns rays on the atmosphere, you will quickly see that that there can be no increased UV radiation in any case.
You must be extremely ignorant of basic physics to say such demonstrably bizarre things.
Carry on anyway.
Humans did NOT create the ozone hole, Dust Bowl, or this temporary spike in temperatures.
The cult DID create the false belief that they did.
“Humans did NOT create the ozone hole, Dust Bowl, or this temporary spike in temperatures.”
Evidence? Or is it just your usual assertion without evidence?
Its not fair to ask somebody to prove a negative when the burden is on somebody to prove a causation. Apparently Nate is ignorant of the entire purpose of the scientific method.
Nate strongly holds to the propositive of guilty until proven innocent.
Gill holds dear to the “let me say stuff while you keep making me sammiches” doctrine.
“Its not fair to ask somebody to prove a negative when the burden is on somebody to prove a causation.”
False,
In this case Clint stated unequivocally that things “humans did NOT create”
He has no evidence to support his assertion.
Meanwhile there is evidence that humans created the Ozone Hole, the Dust Bowl, and AGW.
And you assert positively That humans are primarily responsible for the industrial age warming and never produce proof of that either.
Gill did not make me any sammich.
Prove me wrong.
Clint asserted with certainty a thing for which he has no evidence, at all. Bill knows all about that.
“for the industrial age warming and never produce proof of that either.”
Lots of evidence provided, almost all of it knee-jerk rejected.
Because none of it is empirical evidence.
Knee jerk rejects…
Are talking about land area?
Global climate is about ocean area.
Ocean warms, and land cools.
Average global land is about 10 C, the warmer ocean surface causes the average global air temperature to be about 15 C.
And most sunlight is absorbed in tropical ocean area- humans wanting to cool Earth {which is a bad idea, maybe} could alter the tropical ocean area- they could increase or decrease global climate average temperature.
I think a lot people should live in ocean settlements, if not for any other reason, than is warmer. Or like having a lot of tropical island paradises- with great surfing.
gb…”Global climate is about ocean area”.
***
Good point. It would seem the huge Pacific Ocean in Tropical regions is controhling global temps. I don’t think it an accident that ENSO prevails in those areas of the Tropical Pacific.
Martin…first of all, you need to define what you mean by temperature. Obviously, if you change the air temperature, that heat will rise and disperse with altitude. No net warming.
If you mean the actual temperature of the solid surface, that too will dissipate naturally in the atmosphere.
Ask yourself this. If we allotted each human his/her tract of land, then the Sun went out, would each human’s contribution heat the planet sufficiently to survive?
“So, my question for all of you is this. If for each human on the planet I allocate a surface area of 780 feet by 780 feet to occupy with all the other creatures of the Earth and all the plants and other forms of life that occupy the Earth, can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way?”
Obviously you can change the local climate. Imagine the difference in the micro climate of your area if you paved it entirely with asphalt versus a forested area. This is the essence of the Urban Heat Island effect, which no one seriously questions. In the vernacular this is largely an albedo effect along with local moisture availability.
“Is my reducing this question all you debate over to this simple question silly.”
It’s not silly, but it’s a very incomplete view that misses the key point that makes the issue intractable.
Anthropogenic global warming by greenhouse gas emissions is inherently a commons problem in that the local benefit of using fossil fuels carries an externalized global cost which is not captured by normal “free market” mechanisms. In the sense that the cost of undesirable emissions (essentially a pollutant) are not inherent it is a literal textbook example of free market failure.
Yes, you have the problem defined. But solving it?! Not so easy because it’s global with too many vested interests on both sides.
So we must adapt, and minimise energy costs because abundant energy will surely be the best way to cope with changing climates.
The WORST thing we can do is willfully (or at least foreseeable) destabilise economies and raise electricity prices using tech like windmills which was cutting edge 400 years ago…piss off poor people by making things unaffordable gives them nothing to lose and sure as hell they will come to overthrow your system of government.
Adapt, it’s the only real choice – along with more nuclear and gas. Coal is OK, but mining it is dirty and fiarly dangerous, and gas burns cleaner. Keep coal for metallurgical purposes.
Nuclear is so cheap that nuclear power plants install solar panels to cut on costs. There are only two things that drive fossil fuel prices down: subsidies and externalities. And in the end, every extra bit of CO2 will have to be sucked out of the atmosphere in some way if we do not want to disrupt these economies you cherish so much. This comes at a steep cost.
If that process could take millennias, adaptation would make sense. Hundreds of years is really fast on a geological scale. But we are talking about decades.
Mad Max was not meant to be a blueprint.
“windmills which was cutting edge 400 years ago”
OMG.
You think they have hardly advanced?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now if only the ice and Australia would agree.
Happy with the satellites compared to earth observation sites.
angech
” Happy with the satellites compared to earth observation sites. ”
*
Aha.
Recently, for quite different reasons, I analyzed surface temperatures in two small regions in North America, and subsequently compared them to UAH’s satellite data.
1. The 2.5 degree grid cell encompassing Vancouver, BC, Canada
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view
2. The Corn Belt (40N-48N — 105W-85W)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19P9CjfPkdmcpgzgtw0Xlm_4Pkb2uqNXO/view
*
Unlike you, I look at data, and I’m happy with earth observation sites too.
Should you doubt these results above: do yourself the same job.
Here in northeast we had a nice ElNino winter , relatively warm no cold spells and very little snow, the snow that did fall melted rapidly
We want more warming
In your opinion…but all our flower bulbs that busted out and then froze, not so much.
I hear this a lot, but generally the people who think they want “more warming” actually don’t.
Warming will mean 10s if not 100s of millions of additional climate refugees looking for safe harbour in northern countries in the next 25 years.
Will you really welcome millions or 10s of millions of additional refugees to your country?
I have a little question about the UAH data.
I’ve been looking at the monthly gridded data recently, and noticed there seem to be a larger number of grid points with a value of zero than would be expected. In general there seem to be around twice as many zeros as there are other similar values.
For example, for 2023, I get the following counts for anomalies between -0.03 and +0.03
-0.03 27033
-0.02 27101
-0.01 26754
0.00 53822
0.01 26842
0.02 26827
0.03 26863
All years seem to show a similar pattern.
Could this just be the result of how the figures are rounded? It looks like the 0 value covers twice the range of temperatures as the others.
I’ve noticed this too. In the past I’ve speculated that it has something to do with water vapor phase changes clamping the values near 0 C. This would not be unlike how water in vessel has a clamping effect at 0 C for an extended period until the phase change is complete and the temperature begins to drop below 0 C at a steady rate once again.
I wondered at first if there was a statistical or physical reason, but it seems unlikely given that the almost identical anomalies are not affected.
And as I said, when you see how consistently the 0’s are close to double the other values, it seems more likely it’s to do with how they are rounded. Possibly each non-zero value is just being rounded towards zero. Zero is then reported for any value between (-0.01, +0.01) – making it twice the bin size as over values.
Hopefully that means it shouldn’t affect any average. It s=would be different if they were random spurious zeros.
You can thank Jim Gorman for me noticing this.
The fact that it is double the others is interesting. And yes, I agree that does suggest a possible rounding explanation.
bellman…if you read John Christy on that, he explains that warming in the Tropics is minimal, maybe even zero. If you look at a UAH contour map that lays out the planet as anomalies on a world map, you can see that most of the planet has minimal warming along a huge swath abutting the Equator.
Walter and I have discussed this and agree that the elevated average is a result of statistical averaging, not a true warming. For example, here in Vancouver, Canada, I have noticed no effect of this on-going spike. Of course, one would not notice a warming of a few tenths C.
Much ado about nothing.
That’s nothing to do with what I’m describing.
Could you provide a reference for the John Christy quote? The UAH data doesn’t suggest zero warming int he Tropics. The rate up to January was 0.13C / decade, and up to the start of 2023 was 0.12C / decade.
January 2024 was a record for the Tropics Anomaly, and this month was not much cooler. See the table in this post.
Bellman
Please don’t waste your time with an all-time everything denŷing ignoramus like Robertson. He doesn’t know anything, would never able to process any data but nonetheless braggarts as if he was aware of everything.
*
But… could you please explain how you find so many anomalies in the grid between -0.03 and +0.03 for 2023?
A month’s grid data contains 10,368 cells, of which 9,504 contain valid data (since the three lowest/highest latitude bands do not).
For January 2024 I count 127 out of 9504 anomalies between -0.03 and +0.03: for December 2023 there were 141.
Perhaps you have built the sum of this since December 1978?
Your right of course. That was the count for all the data. For 2023 it’s
-0.03 391
-0.02 420
-0.01 425
0 930
0.01 453
0.02 447
0.03 438
As a check here are my figures for January 2024
-0.03 19
-0.02 20
-0.01 28
0.00 56
0.01 20
0.02 20
0.03 20
Total = 183
For December 2023
-0.03 28
-0.02 20
-0.01 15
0.00 53
0.01 24
0.02 31
0.03 21
Total = 192
I’m not sure why my figures are a little different from yours. I double checked the values for January using a search on the text file, and it agrees with my figures.
Now it’s your time to be right! Your numbers are perfect.
Apparently I’m too tired and doing too many things in parallel, as you can see on this thread :–)
Bellman
And here is how the stuff looks like – of course not using any spherical area conserving projection! It’s merely the 1:1 display of 9,504 cells as 66 lines of 144 columns each.
1. LT Jan 24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vGIpDvk67goHko3igZ5I3NWZ24YDMH–/view
2. LS Jan 24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgac91LmiZ2rcgDLdq9A5bFnWdbJrkgv/view
A similar job could be done for MT and TP of course: the data structures are identical for all four atmospheric layers in UAH 6.0 and for the LT in UAH 5.6.
Bellman, slightly off-topic, but because I know you do modeling too I wanted to let you know that the volcanic AOD data has been updated through 2023.
https://github.com/ClimateIndicator/forcing-timeseries
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to look into it.
https://youtu.be/f_lRdkH_QoY?t=5357
After an embarrassing showing simping for an autocrat, Tucker Carlson finally finds his balls (as long as Daddy Putin isn’t in the room with him).
Tucker Carlson bashed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine, claiming that the “denazification” of the country was “one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard.”
Tucker revealed himself as being pretty dumb as he tried to pose an agenda on Putin. He was out-foxed through the entire interview.
Had he bothered to check, he would have seen that the US Congress voted years ago to denounce the Azov battalion, for their neo-Nazi ways. Kyiv dispatched that battalion to eastern Ukraine to deal with so-called Russian troublemakers, as reported by the western media. Those so-called troublemakers were Ukrainians who had revolted when the president for whom they had legally voted was overthrown in a coup in 2014. That’s what wrankled Putin and Tucker missed it completely.
Tucker is pretty stoopid. Had he done minimal research he might have noted that thousands of Ukrainians hold a candle-light vigil each year to celebrate Ukrainian Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera and SS Galacia.
Go on, look it up and learn something yourself. Bandera was a co-leader of the UON, a group formed in the Ukraine in 1929 who were based on fascist ideology. Their covert actions against Stalin cost them dearly when he decided to deal with them by starving the Ukraine into submission. In other words, those ijits cost a lot of innocent Ukrainians their lives. They are doing it right now in the Ukraine as they force Zelensky not to deal with Putin.
Bandera sided with the Nazis in WW II and was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. Same with the SS Galacia, a Ukrainian division of the Nazi SS.
Tucker knows he is dumb, but I would say he smarter than most people in the media.
If denazification is not dumb, why doesn’t Canada do it?
Is Russia denazified?
I think not, and both Russia and Canada imported Nazis.
Just because Canada {and US} has Nazis, isn’t a good reason to invade, either.
Don’t believe Robertson’s trash – whatever it is about.
Robertson tells exactly the same thing about an alleged large Nazi background in Ukraine that is – not surprisingly – propagated in Western Europe (especially in Germany, France, Italy and Hungary) by extreme right-wing and left-wing parties and groups.
These extremes share the same thing: to support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine against all odds. The connections between Russia’s FSB and these extremes are best known.
*
Of course: the Azov battalion really exists!
But only gullible idîots like Robertson, credulously believing the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin (or possibly being paid by it to spread its lies), endlessly repeat the same nonsense about this ridiculous troupe.
The truth is that the Nomenklatura around Putin wants to withdraw what Mikhail Gorbachev initiated in 1991, and tries to reestablish what existed long time before, what they name «Новоросія», i.e. ‘Novorossiya’:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png
and which started in 2014 with the invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea.
See also:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/05/putins-greater-novorossiya-the-dismemberment-of-ukraine/
*
There are for sure more Nazis per km^2 in Russia, Canada, the US and most parts of South America than in the Ukraine.
Simply because after WW II, incredibly many Nazis managed to secretly leave Germany via Rome, Italy toward North and South America with the help of the Catholic Church and… the US Army.
Gordon has been tricked into believing that (some) Ukrainians support Nazism, when what they support is Bandera’s fight for Ukrainian independence, and they airbrush his Nazi collaboration out of their narrative.
The Kremlin paints them as Nazi sympathisers. This is a lie.
Also, just as many people, in different parts of Ukraine, remember his Nazi collaboration and condemn him.
https://www.dw.com/en/stepan-bandera-ukrainian-hero-or-nazi-collaborator/a-61842720
Don’t trust Gordon to shed light on much.
The higher the peak the deeper the drop, see 1998.
The Atlantic ocean is about to start a 30 year cooling.
Source?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#4
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#12
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Charles Best
Here is a comparison of HadISST1 SST, the rawest SST series available, to UAH 6.0 LT’s grid ocean data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15syqSRmKI4XLU6esTQf4ZUnkjkrZeExh/view
What you see everywhere is the so-called detrended variant whose sole use is to demonstrate that behind the time series there is a cycle.
Some people like to de-trend data. If you’re looking for cycles, then it makes perfect sense to de-trend… unless, of course, you believe that the trend is in itself cyclic.
skeptikal
What’s the sense of this redundant reply in which you repeat what I say?
What you like so many others don’t get is that if you want to compare AMO with temperature time series, then either
– you use the ‘undetrended’ (!) AMO
or
– you use the detrended AMO but then have to detrend the other time series as well, otherwise the comparison makes no sense at all.
*
Here are charts which hopefully help to understand:
1. AMO detrended vs. undetrended
https://tinyurl.com/AMO-detr-vs-undetr
2. AMO undetrended vs. surface time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
Different reference periods… I should update the stuff.
Bindidon,
Don’t get upset. My reply was not meant for you. It was meant for the people who can see the meaning of the message I’m trying to convey.
1. I don’t get upset by such superficial posts.
2. Ooops?
” It was meant for the people who can see the meaning of the message Im trying to convey. ”
What the heck are you ‘trying to convey’, skeptical?
Just a load of blah blah.
Cycle nuts should not need to detrend is the point.
@ Hans Erren
“The higher the peak, the deeper the drop, see 1998.”
___________________________________
The higher the peak, the higher the next peak.
And the higher the next one, the higher the one after the next one. See 2016 and 2023.
This will goe on for many decades.
And the higher the temperature, the louder the denying.
What would we be denying? That climate is changing due to solar activity and shifting ocean currents?
NASA: For the 100th time, it’s humans driving global warming, not the Sun!
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/
Ark, if you believe correlation over physics, then go with ice cream stores cause global warming. The correlation is much better…..
Dor the 100th time, In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ~Galileo
Humble reasoning says the sun drives climate and oceans moderate climate. Its been that way since God created earth.
See King Canute and his experience with tides.
Marxist global warming afficionados deny God exists.
The opinions of Galileo, Feynman or Einstein on epistemology is too often factually wrong.
The carbon cycle has been the control knob since before humans appeared and created a God who allegedly created the world six thousands years ago, three centuries after the Egyptian civilization presumably appeared.
Last time the Earth was around 450 ppm was 3M years ago:
https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2
It’s just a matter of time until we get there unless we get our act together and stop falling for the shiniest autocrat that preys on troglodyte insecurities.
Contrarians and cranks alike should drop the talking points that are refuted by K-12 resources.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ark…”NASA: For the 100th time, its humans driving global warming, not the Sun!”
***
At one time, the head of NASA wanted to get rid of James Hansen and the climate division (GISS), the NASA pseudo-science department. Unfortunately, he was over-ruled by Al Gore. who regarded Hansen as his bosom-buddy.
GISS has been a thorn in the side of NASA, dragging them down into the realms of pseudo-science. Of course, NASA PR department is not helping by claiming the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit.
Ken,
God gave us, some of us anyway, the intelligence to understand and decipher the natural world; to not do so would dishonor Him.
Physics is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
See King Canute Syndrome.
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Very good, Ark. And physics is why we know Moon is NOT spinning, ice cubes can NOT boil water, CO2 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface, and the “EEI” is bogus.
“God gave us, some of us anyway, the intelligence to understand and decipher the natural world; to not do so would dishonor Him.”
You’re paraphrasing Galileo.
We do not have the power to alter climate.
We do and we did, e.g.:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261
Between word games and numbers games, contrarians who associate themselves to Galileos and by serendipity one of the biggest braggarts in the history of science, should know on which he sides.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Humble reasoning says the sun drives”
Show us that reasoning, Ken.
“The carbon cycle has been the control knob since before humans appeared and created a God who allegedly created the world six thousands years ago, three centuries after the Egyptian civilization presumably appeared.”
Derp
1 Timothy 1; 1-7 (Important bit is verse 4)(7 really applies to Willard)
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
You’re on the wrong side of the aisle to be speaking for our sweet socialist zombie, Kennui:
1 The Troglodytes, along with some religion scholars who had come from Roy’s, gathered around him.
2 They noticed that some of his disciples weren’t being careful with ritual anointment before poasting.
3 The Troglodytes – cranks in general, in fact – would never comment without going through the motions of a ritual throat clearing,
4 with an especially vigorous scolding if they had just come from the political conventions.
5 The Troglodytes and religion scholars asked, “Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at gatherings without kneeling to Saint Galileo?”
6 Jesus answered, “Lew was right about frauds like you, hit the bull’s-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn’t in it.
7 They act like they are worshiping me, but they don’t mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy,
8 Ditching Team Science’s command and taking up the latest fads.”
9 He went on, “Well, good for you. You get rid of Team Science’s command so you won’t be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!
10 Planck said, ‘Respect your models and your theories,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing models or theories without offering anything should be left uncited.’
11 But you weasel out of that by saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to say of models and theories, ‘Gift! What I owed you I’ve given as a gift to God,’
12 thus relieving yourselves of obligation to Team Science.
13 You scratch out Team Science’s Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this, including denial and requesting sammiches.”
14 Jesus called the crowd together again and said, “Listen now, all of you – take this to heart.
15 It’s not what you swallow that pollutes your life; it’s what you vomit – that’s the real pollution.”
All that to say you’re a godless heathen, worse, one that thinks he knows it all.
What a bore.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Whatever you might cajole yourself with when you appeal to your pet deity has little to do with the true message of the New Testament, beloved Kennui.
I have not come here to bring peace.
‘I have not come here to bring peace’
Its what boring tr~lls do.
Oh, Kennui.
“I have not come here to bring peace.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
By Kennui’s logic, Mike Flynn, that’d be the Jesus.
wee willy…you are ranting more than usual, having a bad hair day?
Gordo, please stop trо lling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
F,
You wrote –
“This will goe on for many decades.”
How many decades, and why will it stop?
You are just trolling, aren’t you?
#2
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
F,
You wrote
“This will goe on for many decades.”
How many decades, and why will it stop?
You are just trolling, arent you?
Binny, if you can’t answer either (a soundly based guess will do), what’s the point of pretending that there is a GHE? Do you think this warming will continue forever, or stop before the seas boil?
Just whining about me trying to find out your opinions are, doesn’t make you look very sure of yourself!
Carry on grumbling.
#3
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#4
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#5
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#6
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#7
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#8
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner yanks my chain again.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
–SPACE: SpaceX launches Crew-8 astronaut mission to International Space Station for NASA (video).
Flashback: Some parts of America still work.
Posted at 8:18 am by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
That also worked.
Also Starship had a Wet Dress Rehearsal last nite.
Which was needed to get launch permit.
Many guess, test launch three, might happen within 2 weeks [depending in this test, and FAA]. And lots of other things.
Musk wants 9 starship launches this year. And I have mentioned he is a madman.
I would go for for 4. But would focus a couple billion on moving the ball forward on ocean rocket launches.
And of course, I would test, cheap floating breakwaters.
I posted this somewhere, but in terms of history:
–From an historical standpoint, the application of a floating structure for the attenuation of surface gravity waves was first considered by Joly (1905).
Only minimal efforts were expended on the concept until the necessity for ensuring the offloading of men and materials during the Normandy invasion of World War II, at which time two different types of wave barriers were developed by Great Britain. One of these developments was a portable barge-type unit which was floated into position and sunk at a specific location by filling with seawater. This “phoenix” structure (204 feet long by 62 feet wide by 60 feet high) effectively intercepted the preponderance of wave energy to which it was subjected. The second type of wave barrier was a true floating
breakwater which had a cruciform cross section (200 feet long by 25 feet wide by 25 feet deep). This “Bombardon” was designed to withstand a wave 10 feet high and 150 feet long, and was successful during the invasion. However, the structure collapsed during an unexpected storm when the seas grew to 15 feet in height with lengths of 300 feet, thus generating stresses more than eight times those for which the structure had been designed.–
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA110692.pdf
The Mulberry wharf structures towed from the UK to Normandy were not to suppress gravity waves, which are theoretical waves that make no sense to me. Waves in an ocean are caused by ocean currents an the artificial harbours were intended only to reduce wave action enough to allow supplies to be unloaded.
The idea of a gravity wave in the atmosphere is actually a phenomenon of gases in the atmosphere. Compressing air into waves has more to do with convection than gravity. Gravity does compress air unevenly with altitude but that can hardly be labeled a gravity wave.
What is meant by a gravity wave is an actual variations in gravity acting like a wave. Personally, I think the theory is nonsense, mainly because we have no idea what gravity is. An equally stoopid theory is that of particle/wave duality.
If Brits want to call ocean waves, gravity waves, I am not going to have a cow.
But the wind generated ocean waves, do involve the force of gravity.
An interesting question could be, what lake/ocean waves look like on the Moon.
My understanding is water on the Moon is quite bouncing. Or Earth gravity could be said to suppress waves.
But if space rock hits Earth ocean, the wave is not “suppressed” but you don’t “see it” until in runs across shallower water, and it’s climbs hundreds meters tall and traveling at sub sonic velocity.
gb…”But the wind generated ocean waves, do involve the force of gravity”.
Of course they do, but the meaning of gravity wave in science has something to do with gravity acting in waves, which it doesn’t do. Gravity acts as a constant force and varies with altitude, not as a wave.
The concept of a gravity wave, as far as I can see, is related to the nonsense about space-time.
‘Very Bizarre’: Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data
by Tyler Durden Sunday, Mar 03, 2024 – 05:10 AM
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-climate-change-data
Linked from: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.
“With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel, according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.
And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st centuryheretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions, Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.”
The fact that they don’t just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. He’s just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value.
> Hes just a little bitch
Well well well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That’s not nice.
which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection
Christy et al. 2003 asses the uncertainty on monthly anomalies of +/- 0.20 C.
Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense.
He is correct. You can do your own type A evaluation of uncertainty and prove this out for yourself.
Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
The myth that never dies. Satellite data is actually very sparse. Refer to figure 4 in Spencer et. al 1990 Global Atmospheric Temperature Monitoring with Satellite Microwave Measurements for an illustration.
And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value.
Satellite datasets use extensive interpolation. For example, UAH interpolates missing grid cells using grid cells from up to 4175 km away. Contrast this with GISTEMP which limits its interpolation to only 1200 km.
Thanks:
https://climateball.net/but-data/#interpolation
Today is a great Climateball day!
I got another shoutout. Thanks!
BTW…if you need a reference that 4165 km claim it is Spencer & Christy 1992 Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies Part I.
Page 850, last paragraph on the left side. They talk about interpolation being performed on 2.5 degree grid squares out to a maximum distance of 15 grid. Given 111.1 km per degree longitude at the equator that comes out to 111 km/degree * 2.5 degrees * 15 = 4165 km.
They also talk about doing the interpolation up to 2 days away which is something the traditional surface station datasets do not do at all.
I’m highlighting the potential of satellites. All the datasets are adjusted, but satellites have the potential to monitor and provide information at a truly global scale. Near-surface measurements do not; they have correlation with anomalies.
[MONKEY MAN] I’m highlighting the potential of satellites.
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] The fact that they don’t just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. Hes just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
Those two statement(s) don’t contradict each other.
Monkey Man is just a little bitch.
Hogle
” The fact that they dont just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. ”
You of course DON’T mean ‘satellite’ data, Hogle.
You mean that ‘satellite’ data which fits your incompetent ‘no warming let alone CO2-based problems’ narrative, i.e. UAH (and since recently, NOAA STAR) data; but CERTAINLY not RSS data.
*
” Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. Hes just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. ”
All you coward are able to do is to discredit, denigrate and – above all – insult people whose results you’d never be able to technically let alone scientifically contradict.
*
” Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach. ”
This is absolutely ridiculous, see Christy/Spencer:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/5/8/1520-0442_1992_005_0858_parvos_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
*
” And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value. ”
This is even more than absolutely ridiculous.
You remind me a long conversation 10 years ago or so in Berlin I had with a French engineer woman who was at that time responsible for the design of new highway routes in France.
She was laughing a lot about climate pseudo-skeptics like you because climate skepticism is, as she explained, the one and only corner where people doubt about necessity and accuracy of interpolation, a matter accepted in so many domains (including insurance etc).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640617
“instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot.”
Walter, not sure where you get this erroneous idea. The satellite data have huge systematic uncertainty of the order of 50%, as the various analyses produce wildly different temperature trends.
One problem is that they have very poor vertical resolution, so as they try to measure the warming trend of troposphere, they cannot avoid including some of the stratosphere, which has a much larger cooling trend.
They must use an algorithm that is basically guessed, to extract the troposphere from the mix of troposphere plus stratosphere, and this gives significant uncertainty.
Nate will be praising the satellite data in his next post such that it can accurately measure atmosphere temperatures with enough accuracy to be confident in an EEI of 1.5w/m2.
And of course when you point out in the climate system that La Nina is an indication of a cooler ocean, Nate will just say thats and internal difference that averages out to nothing.
Nate doesn’t argue this stuff from a science perspective he argues from a political perspective of constant lies.
nate…”One problem is that they have very poor vertical resolution, so as they try to measure the warming trend of troposphere, they cannot avoid including some of the stratosphere…”.
***
Nate needs to do some reading on AMSU theory. The AMSUs have multiple channels that sample O2 emissions at various altitudes. Channel 5 is used mainly for surface temperatures and is centred at about 4 km, halfway up Mt. Everest. The stratosphere is sampled by a different channel. Recently, UAH has incorporated two other higher altitude channels to help them move away from look-ahead scanning which requires more complicated weighting functions. It also enables the use of cells.
Of course, this confuses the heck out of Binny, who thinks UAH applies a formula in lieu of actual physical sensors. Although channel 5 is centred at 4 km altitude it can easily receive O2 emissions right to the surface layer. However, due to spurious microwave transmission from the surface they don’t extend right to the surface. Through interpolation they can get close enough that radiometers agree with their surface projections.
“h requires more complicated weighting functions.”
Gordon seems to not understand that weighting functions are required because of what I posted, the mixture of stratosphere into the troposphere measurement.
As usual, Gordo doesn’t know what he writes about. The MSU/AMSU instruments such as AMSU channel 5, record the sum total of the emissions received at a particular microwave frequency. That sum is an altitude weighted intensity value, for which the theoretical representation shows a peak at some pressure altitude but which also includes some contribution from both the surface and the Stratosphere. The theoretical model is based on another model which represents a ideal temperature vs. pressure altitude and which may not represent conditions appropriate for other latitudes or seasons.
The UAH LT is a combination of 3 channels, the equation for doing so is based entirely on the theoretical models for each channel. The LT also incorporates an approach which requires fitting the data to curves, which may be another problem, given that the dates for the higher pressure altitude slices of data does not correspond to the dates for that at lower altitudes.
As usual, Gordo doesn’t know what he writes about. The MSU/AMSU instruments such as AMSU channel 5, record the sum total of the emissions received at a particular microwave frequency. That sum is an altitude weighted intensity value, for which the theoretical representation shows a peak at some pressure altitude but which also includes some contribution from both the surface and the Stratosphere. The theoretical model is based on another model which represents a ideal temperature vs pressure altitude and which may not represent conditions appropriate for other latitudes or seasons.
The UAH LT is a combination of 3 channels, the equation for doing so is based entirely on the theoretical models for each channel. The LT also incorporates an approach which requires fitting the data to curves, which may be another problem, given that the dates for the higher pressure altitude slices of data does not correspond to the dates for that at lower altitudes.
“Nate will be praising the satellite data in his next post ”
Bill is quite stoopid, as he seems to believe all satellites are equal!
CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.
It is a very small forcing and feedback.
It is a very-very small-small forcing and feedback.
Before get solving about a very small forcing and feedback the CO2 trace gas content in Earths thin atmosphere, please consider about Earths surface the very strong specular reflection.
The smooth surface planets and moons specular reflection should be necessarily considered in the planets and moons Energy in estimation, because otherwise the Planet Energy Income will be very much overestimated.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Making Earth colder, could count as a crisis.
In simple terms, Russia is coldest country in the world, and it has the most nuclear weapons.
At moment, cold kills far more people than warm.
Well, let’s see what the coupled term Φ(1 – a)S produces:
Albedo =
=(satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m^2) /S W/m^2
Earth’s Albedo = 0,306
So = 1362 W/m^2
(Earth’s satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m^2) =
= Albedo * So = 0,306 *1362 W/m^2 = 416,8 W/m^2
The Earth’s surface the not reflected SW W/m^2 =
= Φ(1362 W/m^2 – 416,8 W/m^2)=
= 0,47*(945,2 W/m^2) = 444,2 W/m^2
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Albedo = “mostly” clouds
One could say a lot about clouds.
Clouds both cool and warm. And that is very simple thing, to say about clouds.
Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.
–
But the theoretical T.effective does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets’ and moons’ the average surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What kind of feedback, Christos? There is a positive amplifying feedback and a servo-type feedback that has no amplification factor. The first would be dangerous and the second harmless.
Problem is, a positive amplifying feedback is not possible in the atmosphere since it would require an amplifier. Many alarmists think positive feedback can amplify, which is nonsense.
I still don’t know what is meant by a forcing. It appears to be jargon from differential equation theory where one function is used to force a response from another. For example, a unit impulse function can be applied to a differential equation function representing an amplifier to ‘force’ a response.
Last time I looked, there were no differential equations in the atmosphere, just in climate models.
” no differential equations in the atmosphere”
Gordon reveals his anti-science tattoo.
Does the Alleged Climate Crisis Justify Ignoring Accusations of Chinese Slave Labor?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/03/does-the-alleged-climate-crisis-justify-ignoring-accusations-of-chinese-slave-labor/
I am wondering, if anyone knows how many slaves China has.
And in terms of GDP, how do you count the labor of slaves?
Russian Military Suffers Heavy Losses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpkcjTSYxG0
In Yemen they are recruiting about 100,000 soldiers, and using a picture of Joe Biden for target practice- for their holy war.
And meanwhile US military recruitment is down.
gb…you don’t believe that Ukrainian propaganda, do you? They have 150 million people in Russia.
For over a year now we have been hearing propaganda about how Russia is losing the war and how they have been stopped. The truth is, they got what they came for and are currently holding it against desperate Ukrainian attempts to get it back.
I would say US intel propaganda.
“They have 150 million people in Russia.”
Google says:
“143.4 million (2021)”
And I would say flat or declining. I actually know some American that moved to Russia- or Russia gained 4. And perhaps/maybe more Americans are doing that- I don’t know.
But other than my personal knowledge, I don’t think Russia is having many people move there {from US or anywhere}.
Russia lost the war, by starting the war. If took it in 3 days, they would have lost the war.
When was last time any country, has won a war?
Any, in last hundred years?
gb…if you watch the interview of Putin by Carlson, Putin holds nothing back. When he does, he tells you why, usually for security reasons. He carefully explains the history of the the USSR and the Ukraine, something Carlson initially tried to steer him away from. It was clear that Carlson had an agenda by which he intended to hold the interview and Putin out-foxed him.
Even after what Putin told him, which can be easily verified from our own history of Russia and Europe, Carlson failed to grasp what Putin was getting at about Nazi elements in the Ukraine.
Anyone who has read the history of WW II knows how the Russians were brutalized by the Nazis. I have no doubt it is still a sore point with many of them. It had to be galling that certain Ukrainians sides with the Nazis and descendants of those traitors are still operating in the Ukraine today. Thousands of them hold candle-light vigils to celebrate the Ukrainian Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galacia.
When the Ukrainian president was deposed in a coup in 2014, it was not the Ukrainian army or police who forced the coup. Neither was it Ukrainian protestors in general since they had held peaceful protests. The president was forced out by armed protestors while the army and police stood by.
So, who were those armed protestors? There is only one group in the Ukraine who are known to be armed and that are the same Nazi-based nationalists whose descendants fought with the Nazis. The nationalists run around killing and harming people they don’t like and no one acts. Why? The obvious reason is that they are feared and that there are enough of them to create such fear.
In 2016, they forced a sitting president to pass a law honouring Ukrainian Nazi war criminals. What kind of country does that under the guise of democracy? What kind of country allows armed nationalists to depose a democratically-elected president?
It took 8 years for Russia to act and their claim that they did so to rid the Ukraine of Nazi forces and to allow native Russians to vote on whether to remain in the Ukraine or separate seems sound enough to me.
Having said that, I don’t understand things that Putin has done, like backing Syria or Iran. Then again, I don’t understand international politicians and how they act. Russia seems to fear the US taking over the Middle East since it has countries like Georgia considered part of that area.
I am not so naive as to accept Putin on his word, but other factors independent of him corroborate what he claimed in the Carlson interview.
binny van der klown, cousin of Klint Klown…
“Of course: the Azov battalion really exists!
But only gullible idots like Robertson, credulously believing the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin (or possibly being paid by it to spread its lies), endlessly repeat the same nonsense about this ridiculous troupe.
The truth is that the Nomenklatura around Putin wants to withdraw what Mikhail Gorbachev initiated in 1991, and tries to reestablish what existed long time before, what they name Новоросія, i.e. Novorossiya:”
***
Azov no longer exists, it was eliminated by the Russians in Mariupol.
Putin explained the Gorbachev give-away adequately. When Gorbachev engineered the break-up of the USSR he naively believed the West would welcome them into the fold. Putin himself tried to join NATO and was rebuffed by hysterical ijits like Hillary Clinton and the Obama regime. Clinton is known to have a hysterical fear of Russians dating back to the Cold War era. .
My take on it. Gorbachev did not understand that Western capitalists were drooling over the prospect of picking the pockets of Russians. They had no intention of enabling a democracy in Russia, just as they resisted a democracy in China in 1915.
I called this myself. When the USSR broke up in 1990, I told several people they could not count on us here in the West to help them transition from a totalitarian state to a democracy. That would have been the smart thing to do, be patient and help them. I knew too well that corporate greed merchants had no interest in that.
An early pick-pocket, Bill Browder, a wall street type, hired a Russian accountant to help him bypass Russian laws on income taxes for foreigners. In other words, he was bent on cheating the Russians in the same manner Wall Street types cheat US citizens. When his accountant was caught and imprisoned, Browder escaped to the UK, leaving his accountant to face charges of fraud.
When Browder whined to people like Hillary Clinton, she saw to it that sanctions were imposed on Russia. That’s how much Democrats favoured democracy in Russia. Then they helped start a war in the Ukraine by assisting in a coup to remove a democratically-elected president. His crime? He favoured economic support from Russia over support from the EU.
The war in the Ukraine today was fostered and promoted by Obama Democrats. It is now thought that Biden profited directly from the Ukraine via his son.
Gordon Robertson
Is there a good chance you are consuming false narratives put out by Russian Intelligence? You are a gullible blind believer as long as it goes against Established views. You still think the evil Lanka is a hero. You should read about Measles outbreak in Florida. Your evil hero is getting his wishes satisfied. Children getting sick for no reason except parents believe the lies. If Lanka gets his ultimate wish thousands of children will die of Small-pox again. Then he can celebrate.
You can celebrate with Russia as they arrest and detain anyone who dares question the official narrative (one you blindly believe without question).
Not sure why you think Russian Intelligence is more truthful than Western Journalists. Maybe both lie but I am certain Russian Intelligence is NOT telling the Truth about anything. Yet you believe it blindly and come here spreading their lies. Why do you do this?
no Norman, anything I have written can be easily corroborated with a little effort. I have never claimed that all Ukrainians are Nazis and I have no idea how many support that nonsense. However, those that do have an inordinate influence in the actions of the Ukraine. I think Zelensky is under their thumb.
Even Wiki has an article on the UON and Stepan Bandera, confirming that he was a Nazi war criminal and that the UON is largely a fascist, white-supremacist organization.
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/01/02/poland-condemns-ukraines-commemoration-of-wartime-nationalist-leader-bandera.
Here are a couple of links, apparently written by a Ukrainian that should enlighten an intelligent mind.
They are written by Andrii Portnov, a Ukrainian historian. I think he waters down the actions of Bandera but I can live with his description given that I know nothing about him directly.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/bandera-mythologies-and-their-traps-for-ukraine/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/how-eastern-ukraine-was-lost/
All things Nazi ended 1945.
You’ve been watching too many ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ episdodes.
Trudeau acts more like a charismatic leader than anyone in Ukraine. He is like a totalitarian Nazi leader and you should be concerned. Ukraine is just a squirrel to distract the easily distracted, and you remind me of such.
I read that Stepan Bandera is revered by some Ukrainians as a fighter for Ukrainian independence, and that they conveniently forget his Nazi collaboration. They do not celebrate it. They are not Nazi sympathisers. Although there are, as in many countries, a handful of Nazi-lovers.
There are also plenty of Ukrainians who remember his Nazi collaboration and condemn it.
Don’t believe the Russian bull.
.” I think Zelensky is under their thumb.”
Sure, the Jewish president is influenced by Nazis, who elected him!
Hee haww!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Sure, the Jewish president is influenced by Nazis, who elected him!”
I agree.
Did you miss the
Hee haw! ?
If not then
Hee Haw!
troubleshooting…
bellman…re John Christy quotes…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
Note…this is not the Christy quote I mentioned re the Tropics, I still need to find it. However, from this pdf, UAH reveals for November 2011…
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
November temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.12 C (about 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.07 C (about 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Tropics: +0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
***
This is indicative of what I meant….only 0.02C warming in Tropics compared to +0.17C in Southern Hemisphere.
For October it was -0.05C compared to baseline.
Other quotes…
“The atmosphere has warmed over most of the Earths surface during the satellite era. Only portions of the Antarctic, two areas off the southwestern coast of South America, and a small region south of Hawaii have cooled. On average, the South Pole region has cooled by about 0.05 C per decade, or 0.16 C (0.30 F) in 33 years. The globes fastest cooling region is in the central Antarctic south of MacKenzie Bay and the Amery Ice Shelf. Temperatures in that region have cooled by an annual average of about 2.36 C (4.25 F).
The warming trend generally increases as you go north. The Southern Hemisphere warmed 0.26 C (0.46 F) in 33 years while the Northern Hemisphere (including the continental U.S.) warmed by an average of 0.65 C (1.17 F). The greatest warming has been in the Arctic. Temperatures in the atmosphere above the Arctic Ocean warmed by an average of 1.75 C (3.15 F) in 33 years. The fastest warming spot is in the Davis Strait, between the easternmost point on Baffin Island and Greenland. Temperatures there have warmed 2.89 C (about 5.2 F)
Note how the warming and cooling are in regions, not global.
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
Note…no net warming till late 1997. Binny is still in denial about that fact.
You mean he said no net warming since 1997.
And he said that in 2011. 13 years later there has been warming since 1997.
Trend since 1997 is: 0.114 C/dec (+/- 0.104)
That’s UAH data. Even with the big 1998 el Nino right at the start of the trend analysis.
So what was the trend since 1997 in 2011?
0.008 C/dec (+/- 0.273)
A quote from Roy in the pdf that clarifies his position as a skep.tic, not a luke-warmer……
“How much of that underlying trend is due to greenhouse gases? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically.
I fully expect Binny van der Klown to drop by and claim the paper is invalid since it was written in 2011. That means he thinks Newton is invalid since it was written around 1630.
John Christy in Fortune Magazine:
“As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true…
Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050… but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn’t even notice it.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20221124184305/http://archive.fortune.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
Yes, Christy, like Roy Spencer, is a lukewarmer. They both agree GHGs have a warming influence, but they think the influence is very small.
Sorry, missed this comment.
“This is indicative of what I meant.only 0.02C warming in Tropics compared to +0.17C in Southern Hemisphere.”
That’s the anomaly for one month. And it’s using an old version of UAH.
Using UAH6 data, with a different base line – the Tropics for November 2011 was -0.21C, compared to Southern Hemisphere of -0.10C. But the trend in the Tropics up to the end of 2011 is +0.11C / decade, compared to SH of +0.10C / decade.
“Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”
Using UAH6 data, the trend up to start of 1997 are,
Tropics = 0.12C / decade
SH = 0.09C / decade
NH = 0.09C / decade
For 1999 – 2011 inclusive the trends were
Tropics = 0.11C / decade
SH = 0.05C / decade
NH = 0.05C / decade
Claiming that there had been little of no warming since the peak of 1998 is the usual cherry picking.
Overall warming up to start of 2023
Tropics = 0.12C / decade
SH = 0.11C / decade
NH = 0.16C / decade
Plastic makers lied about recycling for decades. What do we do next?
The plastic industry pushed recycling as a solution to waste, while internally dismissing it as technically and economically unviable.
By Harri Weber | Published Feb 28, 2024 10:00 AM EST
https://www.popsci.com/environment/recycling-lies/
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
—
ITS GREEN LIES ALL THE WAY DOWN: Plastic makers lied about recycling for decades. What do we do next?
Posted at 2:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Corporations don’t lie, do they?
So what is the answer, glass or wax coated cardboard? Are those better?
Now that the spike of 2023 is really a surge with a cluster of 6 data points, the question is why did it suddenly get so hot? My guess would be that the observation of “bath water” temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean had something to do with it, but not everything.
The hurricane season had lots of named storms, but not so many really strong ones. Too much hot water maybe. There was a rather dramatic graphic showing the huge swath of cooler water that followed Hurricane Franklin. It never made landfall as a major. That is all the proof one needs that hurricanes cool the ocean.
The annual small increase in CO2 is probably not the reason for any of this.
Fair comment.
“…why did it suddenly get so hot?”
The El Niño combined with the record-setting Hunga-Tonga volcano (causing the HTE).
Two REAL forcings.
HTE had a small GHE forcing.
Which you dont believe in. Nothing else is science.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This months Yale Climate Connections This is Not Cool video, following up on an earlier satellite temperature measurements video, explores the debate over the relative merits and comparative accuracy of surface thermometers vs. satellite data.
Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record. “I would have to say that the surface data seems like its more accurate,” Mears said.
According to Zeke Hausfather, a regular Yale Climate Connections expert author and a doctoral candidate working with Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, Weve tried using just the raw data . . . globally, you get pretty much the same warming. The necessary and routine adjustments to surface temperature data sometimes attract disproportionate general circulation media attention, Hausfather says, but those have had very little significant impact over the last 30 years or so. The satellite records historically have been subjected to much, much, larger adjustments over time, according to Hausfather.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/03/experts-opt-for-surface-rather-than-satellite-temp-data/
“According to Zeke Hausfather, . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Since you insist:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2016
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike, Mike:
https://youtu.be/WX7aWsxe9yw?si=3G9zvtxyUxsuLoPc
Where were you seven years ago?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have found is that the satellite measured planets and moons the average surface temperatures (Tsat) RELATE, (everything else equals),
as the planets’ and moons’ their respective (N*cp) products’
the SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
********
Also we have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ken:
“See King Canute…”
King Canute Syndrome: the medical term for climate change denial.
“We do not have the power to alter climate.”
We have altered the composition of Earth’s atmosphere raising the concentration of GHGs significantly since the mid-18th century. No small feat!
“Marxist global warming afficionados deny God exists.”
https://youtu.be/awLR19UuzTg
CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since 1959. That is significant.
How much of that increase is due to human emissions? Some of it, perhaps most of it, is attributable to ocean off gassing as the ocean is slowly warming.
There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earth’s climate.
> There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earths climate.
Step 1 – Pure and naked denial.
Ken isn’t the cabal sycophant that Willard is and that upsets Willard so much he launches into an ad hominem tirade.
The evidence is that climate is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
The only denial comes from people who think the sun plays no role in climate; an absurd premise to say the least.
Willard offers “pure and naked cultism”, as usual.
If asked for the science to support his beliefs, all he will provide is beliefs. He can’t say how CO2 can heat the surface from valid physics, because it can’t.
Poor silly willy is nothing more than a child of the cult.
> Ken isnt the cabal sycophant
Step 1 – Pure, naked denial
> There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
Moar 1. Pure, naked denial.
“Moar 1. Pure, naked denial.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Step 1 Pure and naked denial.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That is {assumed to be} significant.
“…ocean off gassing…”
I don’t know where you get your information, but they’re lying to you. Ever hear of ocean acidification? https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
“There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earths climate.”
I’m sure that must be true in your echo chamber. Here on Earth One we’ve been studying, and gathering evidence of it since 1861.
I respect your commitment to the narrative, but it makes me wonder about your motives.
“I respect your commitment to the narrative, but it makes me wonder about your motives.”
Arkady Abramovich, please stop trolling.
#11
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
“CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since 1959.”
CO2 levels were 315 ppm in 1959. 280 ppm before 1850.
“That is significant.”
Yes, a 50% increase.
“How much of that increase is due to human emissions? Some of it, perhaps most of it, is attributable to ocean off gassing as the ocean is slowly warming.”
Incredible coincidence that this rise mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale, and that somehow the oceans are outgassing CO2 while we measure an increase in oceanic CO2.
Also, the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has changed in line with the burning of fossil fuels, not with the isotopic change that would accompany ocean outgassing.
It’s definitely anthropogenic.
barry,
You wrote “the burning of fossil fuels”. Anthropogenic heat production.
Creates heat. Thermometers are constructed to respond to heat.
“Creates heat.”
How much? Enough to make any significant difference?
You have no idea, do you. This is just the usual blather.
Swenson is like a 1980s AI. It has pre-programmed responses to a small cache of word-strings stored in its software, resulting in regular, accidental non-sequiturs.
barry, please stop trolling.
The evidence is that climate is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
The only denial comes from people who think the sun plays no role in climate; an absurd premise to say the least.
> There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
Step 1 – Pure, naked denial
Up to you to show there is an artifact of CO2 in any climate data.
Don’t come back till you have evidence.
Step 2 of the Contrarian Two-Step:
2 – Sammich Request.
Sammich all ready.
Though I doubt he will be able to eat it or digest it.
Does the third step turn his denial from a two-step to a waltz?
Depends on how you interpret the denial of having being served a sammich. I suppose I could add:
3. – Saying Stuff.
This would cover for Bordo’s storytelling and Monkey Man’s appeals to ignorance.
“Depends on how you interpret the denial of having being served a sammich. ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Sometimes both Step 1 and Step 2 can be done at the same time, eg.
[KENNUI] Not a wishful sammich. (Gimme real evidence.)
“[KENNUI] Not a wishful sammich. (Gimme real evidence.)”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Note the 36% decrease in the outgoing longwave radiation flux in the band between wavenumbers 750 and 600.
That 18W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and ultimately finds it way back to the surface. This raises the equilibrium temperature.
This is generally known as the greenhouse effect.
Increasing the atmospheric CO2 content broadens the band, increases the flux warming the surface and further increases the equilibrium temperature.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The problem is logarithmic.
30 Wm-2 is due to CO2 at 280 ppm.
Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2 … too small to make any significant difference in climate.
The only way to increase the amount of radiation available in the CO2 ab so rp tion spectrum at any given moment in time is to increase solar irradiance.
Ent, you have linked to that bogus chart many times. You either don’t understand it, or don’t care about reality. I suspect it’s both….
But let’s say there is 18 W/m² from CO2 that doesn’t go directly to space. Let’s accept your bogus premise. Now, could that bogus 18 W/m² warm a 288 K surface?
The answer is NO. The low energy 15μ photons from CO2 would likely not be absorbed, or if they were absorbed, their frequency is way below the average frequency of molecules in a 288K surface. To raise the temperature, the average vibrational frequency, corresponding to the average kinetic energy, must be raised.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes. Your cult cannot understand science. They believe they can just make up nonsense to support their false beliefs. It’s like when you made up the nonsense that passenger jets were flying backward. Or Ball4 claiming Earth has a “REAL 255K surface”, or Norman insinuating moons have a square orbit, or Folkerts claiming that fluxes simply add.
Your beliefs are all against science and reality.
> The answer is NO.
Step 1 – Pure denial.
Kennui is not that far from the IPCC’s position. About 4 Wm-2 is something like 1.2C directly. Add feedbacks and you get 1.5-4.5C. Not far from the difference between the middle of the last Ice Age to the our present interglacial.
Contrarians might be cuing “but you have no evidence about the future” as I’m typing this.
Ken
“Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2
That’ about right.
Now, what does that do to the temperature?
Increase ASR by 4W/m^2 and you increase surface temperature by 1C. The 3W increase for doubling CO2 increase direct radiation to the surface will increase surface temperature by 0.75C. A climate sensitivity of 3 will increase the temperature rise to 2.25C.
That’s a conservative estimate, but it is not “too small to make any significant difference in climate. “. That is twice the warming to date and we’re already seeing worrying changes.
Ken
“Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2
That’ about right.
Now, what does that do to the temperature?
Increase ASR by 4W/m^2 and you increase surface temperature by 1C. The 3W increase for doubling CO2 will increase surface temperature by 0.75C. A climate sensitivity of 3 will increase the temperature rise to 2.25C.
That’s a conservative estimate, but it is not “too small to make any significant difference in climate. “. That is twice the warming to date and we’re already seeing worrying changes.
The modest warming observed in our climate is still well below the temperatures that occurred during most of the Holocene.
Current GHE is 340Wm-2. It means temperatures are 15C instead of -18C. 33C from 340Wm-2 means about 1C for every 10Wm-2. So 3Wm-2 should be about 0.3C.
There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur. No one seems to consider whether there are feedbacks in the existing 340Wm-2 or why, if there is feedbacks in the 340Wm-2 they would be significantly greater because of a very small increase of 3Wm-2 due to CO2.
Doubling CO2 will take at least two centuries. 0.3C over two centuries is not a matter for concern.
Warming would be beneficial. Every degree C warming means 1 degree latitude further north where food can be grown reliably.
The only change in temperature that would be worrying is if temperatures abruptly go down 3 – 5C as they did at the start of the little ice age.
> There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur
1. Pure denial.
And as predicted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638866
Willard, please stop tro
“> There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur
1. Pure denial.”
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
> Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Entropic Man,
You wrote previously –
“The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”
Now you write –
“Note the 36% decrease in the outgoing longwave radiation flux in the band between wavenumbers 750 and 600.
That 18W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and ultimately finds it way back to the surface. This raises the equilibrium temperature.
This is generally known as the greenhouse effect.”
Not a stack of blankets, then?
In any case, the surface cools every night, giving up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. Hence four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
You might like to address the question of why surface thermometers show rising temperatures.
Obviously nothing to do piles of blankets or mythical GHEs.
Ken
Rather a Gish Gallop you’ve put up there, but I’ll try to answer what I can.
This is the best data on temperatures since the last glacial period.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
“The modest warming observed in our climate is still well below the temperatures that occurred during most of the Holocene. ”
That turns out not to be the case. We are now at about 1.3C on the right hand scale, about 0.8C warmer than the Holocene optimum.
The LIA bottomed about 0.8C cooler than the Optimum, not 3-5C cooler.
“Doubling CO2 will take at least two centuries. ”
No. CO2 concentration is increasing at 2 ppmyear and accelerating. We are currently at 420ppm and will reach 560ppm no later than 2090.
“There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur. ”
If you do the maths, the Holocene warming was 1.2C due to orbital changes, 1.5C due to extra CO2 and 2.5C due to climate sensitivity. That’s 5.2For which almost half was due to feedbacks.
EM,
You might not have noticed that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
There is no GHE. Your pile of blankets had no effect, did it?
Fanatical GHE cultists simply refuse to believe that the Earth is not magically getting hotter. No amount of cunning equations or calculations involving should be, would be, or could be temperatures, can change facts.
Have you had second thoughts about writing “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”?
That makes you sound pretty delu$#8204;sional, doesn’t it?
> delu$#8204;sional
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trying to bypass Roy’s moderation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It looks like the Holocene data is considered by some to be controversial.
The GISP ice core data compiled by Easterbrook et al clearly shows Holocene to have been much warmer than now.
You can ignore the blather and scroll to the graph https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
So how to decide who is more likely correct?
Anecdotal information suggests Easterbrook is more correct than your Marricott:
Romans grew grapes in North England with which to make wine. Its too cold to reliably grow grapes in North England.
Vikings grew barley on Greenland with which to make beer. Its too cold to reliably grow barley on Greenland.
Battle Thermopilae Spartans vs Persians was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide. Said strip of land is now a kilometer wide. Sea level was clearly higher at this location than it is now. Arguably sea level drop may have other causes than a cooler climate.
Nobody could argue that Kennui can’t be helpful:
https://climateball.net/but-historical-times#greenland
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-historical-times#romans
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-historical-times#thermopylae
More contrarian anecdotes, please!
Ken,
The Holocene Optimum is connected with the solar insolation reaching a summer maximum, specifically at the latitude of Greenland.
However Greenland temperature is not Global temperature.
Here is a gem from Clint:
“The answer is NO. The low energy 15μ photons from CO2 would likely not be absorbed, or if they were absorbed, their frequency is way below the average frequency of molecules in a 288K surface. To raise the temperature, the average vibrational frequency, corresponding to the average kinetic energy, must be raised.”
He should know that raising the temperature raises the amplitude of molecular vibrations, not the frequency of those vibrations.
Never took enough physics.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner vacuously resurrects another thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/
“Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Fridays Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated uncertainties that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Offices temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great that they have no statistical significance at all.”
“The investigative journalist Paul Homewood”
LOL
I don’t know about “reporter” but Homewood is certainly not a statistician.
Not a lot of people know Paul.
And the very best is
” Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. ”
Plus crétin tu meurs.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#10
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
From a caption in a related WUWT link…
‘There is a 1 in 27 million chance that a climate alarmist will tell the truth’.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/27/uk-met-office-says-2014-was-not-the-hottest-year-ever-due-to-uncertainty-ranges-of-the-data/
Upthread, the ignorant braggart Robertson who lacks any technical skills and hence insults me and denigrates all what I post here, wrote his usual blah blah:
” The spike is a lie as a representation of global temperatures. That’s not to say UAH is lying, they are simply the messengers of a statistical average that has no meaning.
This spike is the result of a statistical anomaly, nothing more. Here in the Vancouver, Canada area, there has been no indication that even a slight warming is going on.
I was just out walking in the late afternoon and there is a chill in the air typical of a winter’s day. I was out a couple of days ago with a wind blowing in from slightly north of west and I needed to be bundled up with a toque covered with my hoodie, a thick, quilted jacket, and thermal long johns under my sweats. ”
*
People like Robertson always confound their vague, superficial gut feeling with examining real data.
*
So, the global average has no meaning?
Then why not move down to the smallest portion of the Globe published by the UAH team: a cell in their 2.5 degree grid, i.e. an area of about 51,000 km^2 at Vancouver’s latitude?
In the small grid cell centered at 48.75N-123.75W (a place on Vancouver Island), you find 58 GHCN daily stations located in British Columbia, CA or Washington, US (at altitudes varying from 5 m up to 1100 m), with at least 30 years lifetime and having sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
A comparison of the very local average of the 58 anomaly time series to UAH’s grid cell anomaly (itself being the result of a huge, complex average of different daily data coming from different satellite-borne microwave soundings) gives this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view
*
As anyone can see, even the smallest possible comparison between surface and satellite data clearly shows since 2010 local warming, both at the surface and in the lower troposphere – indicated of course by a polynomial fit of the third order, and of course NOT by using the trivial y=mx+b stuff, as is brazenly claimed by some pseudo-skeptical ‘specialist’s.
This trivial y=mx+b stuff however tells you the following:
Trends, in C/decade
1979-2023
LT: 0.12 +- 0.05
surf: 0.20 +- 0.04
2000-2023
LT: 0.22 +- 0.11
surf: 0.30 +- 0.10
2010-2023
LT: 0.56 +- 0.28
surf: 0.47 +- 0.25
*
Thus, the very local average for UAH’s ‘Vancouver’ cell shows since 2010 a trend
– way higher than that for UAH48 aka CONUS:
2010-2023
LT: 0.35 +- 0.13
– and a tiny bit higher at the surface than does the CONUS station average:
2010-2023
surf: 0.44 +- 0.20
What did the boundary layer do?
As always, Blindsley-H00d assumes that others are missing something instead of clarifying things himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
The best is that he will never be able to answer his own question.
Throwing sand in the eyes of those few who know even a bit less than himself: that is the only method he ‘masters’.
binny…”People like Robertson always confound their vague, superficial gut feeling with examining real data”.
***
As usual, Binny van der Klown gets it backwards. He thinks its OK to impose ill-gotten data that infers in tenths of a degree that my gut feeling is wrong. When I walk into a cold winter’s breeze, I am supposed to read Binny’s data and force myself to accept it’s not really cold.
That’s the alarmist deeelusion, crunch numbers and tell lies about them.
And again: Robertson dûmb and brazen lies:
" He thinks its OK to impose <b>ill-gotten</b> data… "
Anyone who is definitely no more than a pseudo-engineer (in my native tongue: 'un ingénieur d'opérette'), hence too stûpid to find, download, let alone process data by his own, never will be able to do more than discredit and denigrate other people's results, instead of presenting a well-done technical contradiction.
*
Last night it was -6°C on the terrace, at least 4°C colder than it has been in the last five weeks – due to a sudden cold wind in contrast to an exceptionally warm February.
If I were as stûpid and disingenuous as Robertson, I would claim that we have record cold here south of Berlin, so no warming!
binny isn’t even good at insults, never mind statistics.
The point I was making is that every day for the past several months has been the same old, same old here in Vancouver, Canada. There is no sign of global warming or climate change here in Vancouver. No sign of a spike consisting of tenths of a degree C. If that is happening elsewhere on the planet, good for them. There is no global warming or climate change here in Vancouver.
Higher lows:
https://www.vmcdn.ca/f/files/glaciermedia/images/climate-enviro-solutions/climate-modellingattribution/bc-modelled-climate-temps.jpg
” binny isnt even good at insults, never mind statistics. ”
Indeed I’m, compared to you, ‘not even good at insults’: never in my life did I ever insult persons like you did so many times, by calling them ‘cheating SB’, for example.
*
” The point I was making is that every day for the past several months has been the same old, same old here in Vancouver, Canada. ”
Even here you aren’t able to remind what you recently told about ‘record colds in Vancouver‘.
Do you recall?
” NOAA should send a delegation to Vancouver, Canada, the warmest part of Canada in winter. Over the past several weeks we have set records for cold weather in October and the last couple of days have been seriously cold by our standards. Meantime, the rest of Canada regard us as wimps because it is much colder in those parts of the nation in October. ”
” Thats the thing, Walter, we set records for cold weather here in the Vancouver, Canada area in a climate claimed to represent recodrs for warming. ”
I proved you wrong weeks ago, of course.
*
” There is no sign of global warming or climate change here in Vancouver. ”
Here are two charts in which a few stations around Vancouver are compared to all stations within a 2.5 degree grid cell and to the same UAH 6.0 LT grid cell.
1. Absolute values wrt 1991-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1njlA6DgHPDxBxC26kOvcsBt2Cq3pcNa1/view
2. Anomalies wrt 1991-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_SKqWFK_07ShBwvT0wTf2HqalJRoiyKg/view
*
” No sign of a spike consisting of tenths of a degree C. ”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GBMm9XN4BROiC_yljcBXD44tCMaF0m4h/view
Look at the green spikes at the end of the chart (2021, 2022, 2023).
*
” … never mind statistics. ”
No statistics here, Robertson: only real, honest engineer’s work.
You don’t know anything about statistics, let alone about engineering.
And above all: you are anything but honest.
If you want to gain better insight into how your regional climate is changing, you’d be better off calculating percentiles and frequency distribution charts and examining them over time. Anomalies just hide a lot of detail and can lead to misleading conclusions. That’s why people above are getting confused about the spike.
Monkey Man has not been surprised by the spike because he has made percentiles and frequency distribution charts.
Nobody saw them but he did.
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man is a fraud.
No, Hogle: Willard isn’t a monkey at all, let alone are bdgwx and Bindidon monkeys.
All three simply are people who see that you claim things you’d never be able to prove.
Human beans are monkeys who vote.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner quacks a little more.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
“Upthread, the ignorant braggart Robertson who lacks any technical skills and hence insults me and denigrates all what I post here, wrote his usual blah blah:”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Entropic man writes:
“That is twice the warming to date and were already seeing worrying changes.”
What worrying changes do you speak of?
You know, the ones that make you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go “LaLaLa”.
The changes you denialist s pretend aren’t happening.
EM,
You wrote –
“You know, the ones that make you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go LaLaLa.”
OK, which ones are they? Your imaginary, irrational fears (phobias), or something rational, that can expressed in English, rather than LaLaLa.
I’ll reassure you that weather changes, as does its statistics – climate. Surface temperatures vary between around 1200 C and -90 C. If you get too hot, find some means of cooling down, if you get too cold, find some means of heating up.
By the way, you’ll find you can’t live for more than a few months above 5000 m or so.
You might as well close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go “LaLaLa”.
You don’t mind if I laugh at the spectacle, do you?
3 – Saying Stuff
Willard, please stop trolling.
I invite you to drop by Vancouver, Canada and point out your imaginary changes. Heck, I’ll even buy your a beer, as long as I don’t have to sit there and listen to your Irish blarney.
Thanks. I’m more convinced than ever.
“This marks 9 months in a row, where the monthly record has been broken.”
It is possible that we could end up with a year’s worth of consecutive record-breaking months.
While this wouldn’t have been remarkable in the first few years of the UAH record, I wonder what the odds are of that happening with 45+ years of data, factoring the variability over the period. I’d guess even the current 9-month streak would have very low odds.
barry,
“I wonder what the odds are of that happening ”
You could always educate yourself, and satisfy your curiosity. I’m assuming that you have absolutely no intention of seeking knowledge, but are just trolling.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
> Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
2. – Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please listen to Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639097
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson – I don’t know how to calculate the probability, and yes, I have little interest in spending a few hours trying to figure out how, when my curiosity is on it is mild. I posted with the hope that someone here who has the skill might give it a go.
By the way, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
OK. You are not very interested. I don’t blame you – predicting the outcome of a deterministic chaotic system is impossible.
Do you know this? If you do, trying to get somebody else to waste their time attempting something you know is impossible, might indicate what sort of fanatical GHE cultis5 you are.
At least when Willard is spouting unintelligible gibberish, it is obvious that he is away with the fairies.
Are you pretending otherwise?
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
OK. You are not very interested. I dont blame you predicting the outcome of a deterministic chaotic system is impossible.
Do you know this? If you do, trying to get somebody else to waste their time attempting something you know is impossible, might indicate what sort of fanatical GHE cultis5 you are.
At least when Willard is spouting unintelligible gibberish, it is obvious that he is away with the fairies.
Are you pretending otherwise?
Mike Flynn,
Please continue to play dumb.
Thats a pretty feeble record as its only a statistical warming. The only thing that has been warming has been overnight lows for the past 80 years. The highs hit their peak about 80 years ago. the only place left for them to get warmer is from under retreating ice sheets.
All that is orthogonal to what I was saying.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
#9
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It will likely be the same for some time till the water from Hunga Tonga moves out of the stratosphere.
Besides, the spike is not representative of the planet as a whole. It is nothing more than a statistical anomaly, driven by some parts of the planet. There is no way it has warmed in the Vancouver, Canada area. Of course, who is looking for a few tenths C warming other than an alarmist?
I hear the AMO is about to switch phases. That should fix it.
“the spike is not representative of the planet as a whole.”
It represents an average global temperature, and of all the figures UAH publishes, best represents the planet as a whole.
Whereas temperatures in Vancouver or the tropics or my vivarium do not.
I am content for you to be fixated on Vancouver or the tropics, but not on my vivarium.
barry,
Don’t be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? You’d have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
Dont be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? Youd have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
“The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.”
You were wrong Swenson, it was quite easy for me to accurately predict the future!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1637176
I wonder if Nate is seeing differential equations in the atmosphere. Might explain his deeeelusional thinking.
Gordon seems to believe mathematical sciences can’t or shouldn’t be applied to understand nature.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nice red-herring argument, Nate.
Climate models are based on differential equation, not the atmosphere. That’s why the models cannot predict the future, differential equations cannot be applied to anything real.
Sure, Maxwell’s equations dont apply to anything real!
Sure, the Heat equation doesnt apply to anything real!
Hee Haww!
Gordon confirms his extreme ignorance.
FYI,
“Numerical weather prediction (NWP) uses mathematical models of the atmosphere and oceans to predict the weather based on current weather conditions.”
“The atmosphere is a fluid. As such, the idea of numerical weather prediction is to sample the state of the fluid at a given time and use the equations of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics to estimate the state of the fluid at some time in the future.”
“The equations used are nonlinear partial differential equations which are impossible to solve exactly through analytical methods,[36] with the exception of a few idealized cases.[37] Therefore, numerical methods obtain approximate solutions”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction
Oh well!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Numerical weather prediction (NWP) uses mathematical models of the atmosphere and oceans to predict the weather based on current weather conditions.”
Unfortunately, they don’t work.
In a deterministic chaotic system, the approximate future is not determined by the approximate present.
If you believe otherwise, you might be a fanatical GHE cultist. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? How hard can it be?
Too hard for you and your fellow religionists, obviously.
“Unfortunately, they dont work.”
The usual weird denial of what everybody else in the world gets, that weather prediction works!
Once again, the Robertson boy demonstrates his unbeatable level of incompetence.
He should have a look at what he definitely doesn’t have the least clue of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation
Especially the History section, beginning with
” Differential equations came into existence with the invention of calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. ”
shows how arrogant and ignorant he behaves.
*
In contrast to the completely uneducated Robertson who can only discredit and denigrate, the outstanding astronomer Tobias Mayer knew Newton’s work on differential equations, and used it in his 1750 treatise on Moon’s rotation about its inner axis.
Like any scientifically minded person, Mayer did not trust his gut feeling, and wanted to obtain mathematical proof that our Moon had sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry to calculate arcs and angles on its surface.
Mayer got it wrong, Bindi. Moon does NOT spin, it only orbits. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string.
Puffman, please stop throwing more bait.
Clint R
” Mayer got it wrong, Bindi. Moon does NOT spin, it only orbits. Its the same as a ball-on-a-string. ”
Stop smalltalking and stalking.
Give us instead a mathematical proof that Mayer ‘got it wrong’.
Of course: AVOID by the way
– to mention again your stoopid ‘ball-on-a-string’ childish idiocy
AND
– the trivial trash Tesla wrote in a ridiculous inventer pamphlet – without having ever read the work of Kepler, Newton, Mayer, Euler, Lagrange and Laplace.
Sorry Bindi, but you don’t get to make up rules just to protect your cult beliefs. The ball-on-a-string is REALITY. It’s a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. It’s supported by physics, for those that understand vectors.
You don’t have a such a model. That’s why you’re angry and frustrated. Your cult provides NOTHING except false beliefs.
I don’t mind reminding you of that every time you mention Moon….
Clint R #2
” The ball-on-a-string is REALITY. Its a viable model of orbiting without spin. Its supported by physics, for those that understand vectors. ”
I’m not interested in your claim based on no more than gut feeling.
I’m interested in your mathematical proof that Tobias Mayer’s treatise about the lunar spin is wrong.
And you can’t prove it wrong without having completely understood what he did:
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
Then, having understood the treatise, you can walk along the entire document, and show us all places where Mayer’s computations based on spherical trigonometry were wrong.
*
You never presented any theoretical document about anything on this blog; I therefore doubt your ability to technically and mathematically contradict Mayer.
*
As long as you fail to give us the proof, your replies will be ignored.
So, to recap again: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string. As Little Willy put it: "what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which I have outlined numerous times.
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video: https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
The above four points are now (as before) beyond debate. They’re settled. Once every "Spinner" agrees, we can move on to discussing whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Until then, we wait for "Spinner" to argue against "Spinner" until all are in agreement on the four points.
J’ai toujours espoir que ducon aura sa leçon, mais non.
Pas super différent de Bordo, au fond.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
Graham D. Warner looks for another food fight.
Not at all. I’m looking for “Spinner” to argue against “Spinner”.
Graham D. Warner relapses.
Little Willy keeps responding, without saying anything of any significance. Can always count on him for that. He’s incapable of ignoring my posts.
Graham D. Warner decided he’s gonna last word another thread by trying to inject talking points that have little to do with what Binny or Puffman said.
See what I mean? All he had to do was not respond to my last comment, and he’d have proved me wrong. Instead, he proves me right.
Again.
Graham D. Warner unsportingly keeps trying to make himself relevant:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639596
Keep proving me right, Little Willy. Thanks.
I wonder if Bordo asks for any evidence that he would crash into a tree before putting the breaks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I certainly would require evidence that a tree was likely to be in the way as I drove down a freeway. I try to avoid driving into forests, unless there is a road through one.
I wonder if Bordo really lives in Vancouver, and not LA.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lots of trees in Vancouver, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry…”Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale, and that somehow the oceans are outgassing CO2 while we measure an increase in oceanic CO2″.
***
Several points…
1)The IPCC have based CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on a pre-Industrial guess of 270 ppmv. That guess is cherry-picked from ice core samples in Antarctica that ranged up to 2000 ppmv.
2)there is good evidence from Beck that CO2 concentrations exceeded 400 ppmv in the 1940s, and at other times, therefore the notion that CO2 is rising linearly is suspect.
3)there are no international stations for measuring CO2 density. The main station on Mauna Loa is located on an active volcano.
Guess what an active volcano out-gases. Duh!!!
Here’s the irony, the observatory was shut down in 2022 when the volcano erupted and lava took out the power lines to the station. The station is still inaccessible.
https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/co2/co2.html
3)The CO2 warming theory intentionally negates the real driver of current warming, recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Allow me to summarize in part.
-the main CO2 measuring station is located on an active volcano and is currently unavailable…
-the Little Ice Age has been discredited by the IPCC as a phenomenon local to Europe.
barry wrote “Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale,”.
What? Is barry quite mad?
Mankind burns fossil fuels, creating CO2 and H2O amongst other things – like heat!
Barry is amazed that the emissions are due to emissions?
Quite out of touch with reality. Neither CO2 nor H2O produce heat. Making them from fossil fuels does.
Surprise, surprise!
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry wrote “Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale,”.
What? Is barry quite mad?
Mankind burns fossil fuels, creating CO2 and H2O amongst other things like heat!
Barry is amazed that the emissions are due to emissions?
Quite out of touch with reality. Neither CO2 nor H2O produce heat. Making them from fossil fuels does.
Surprise, surprise!
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry,
Dont be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? Youd have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
Mike Flynn,
Please stick to PSTering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“1)The IPCC have based CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on a pre-Industrial guess of 270 ppmv. That guess is cherry-picked from ice core samples in Antarctica that ranged up to 2000 ppmv.”
Multiple independent ice core samples from different regions of the planet and other proxies corroborate about 280 ppm pre-industrial. There is no credible (ie Jarowoski) criticism of this.
“2)there is good evidence from Beck that CO2 concentrations exceeded 400 ppmv in the 1940s, and at other times, therefore the notion that CO2 is rising linearly is suspect.”
Multiple measuring stations around the world since the 1950s confirm a steady rise and no wild spikes. Whereas Beck used data from near factories, in cities, that got local levels and did not account for the local factors.
So either post 1956, CO2 levels magically stabilised from wild fluctuations to a steady rise, or Beck’s paper is a dud.
3)there are no international stations for measuring CO2 density. The main station on Mauna Loa is located on an active volcano.
Multiple independent measuring stations – ie in Antarctica not near a volcano, corroborate the M/L record, which DOES account for volcanic activity and exogenous factors where your vaunted Beck does not.
If you are criticising the researchers at M/L, who are aware of contamination issues and account for them, then you must equally if not more greatly, criticise Beck, who took no notice of local factors.
Some useful information for you about measuring stations alternative to M/L:
“Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica. GML first began measurements of CO2 at the observatories in 1973, and added CH4 and CO measurements in the 1980’s. Continuous in-situ measurements of these gases provides great detail in their long term trends, seasonal and short-term variations, and diurnal cycles.”
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu/
That’s just one institute. Since the 1970s scores of atmospheric monitoring stations have sprung into being. Here’s a fairly comprehensive list of the institutes that run them.
https://gaw.kishou.go.jp/documents/db_list/organization
Comparing measurements from all over the world corroborates the M/L record.
barry,
All well and good – but CO2 has no heating properties at all.
Particularly at night, and over the last four and a half billion years!
What are you trying to say?
Mike Flynn,
Please stop playing dumb.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Allow me to summarize in part.
-the main CO2 measuring station is located on an active volcano and is currently unavailable… ”
*
Here we see once more what an incompetent and disingenuous liar Robertson actually is!
The reason: he exclusively picks his misinformation out of contrarian blogs – regardless the kind of misinformation.
NOAA, Newton, Einstein, viruses, Russia: all the same trash.
ark…”Ever hear of ocean acidification?”
***
It’s a rumour. Basic chemistry tells us that the absor.p-tion of parts of trace gas into oceans the size of Earth’s oceans cannot budge the pH balance significantly.
Please enumerate this “basic chemistry” for our edification.
Antonin Qwerty,
Don’t you understand basic chemistry?
I am surprised to are appealing to the authority of Gordon Robertson.
I am surprised that you couldn’t see that I asked the question knowing he wouldn’t be able to answer.
And also that you believe “to” is a pronoun.
No … Waite … the second one doesn’t surprise me at all.
Now Baby … Isn’t it Time you got back to your copy-paste?
Every Time I Think of You, I think of your copy-pasting.
AQ,
What is the point of asking a question of someone, when you believe they don’t know the answer?
Are you mad?
A rational person would seek answers from someone who they think is smarter than them.
Maybe you believe everyone is smarter than you, is that it?
“What is the point of asking a question of someone, when you believe they dont know the answer?”
Swenson would never do that…Tee hee hee.
Thanks Mikey for letting me know that you ask me so many questions because you believe I am smarter than you.
Or are you saying you are not rational?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What is Ocean Acidification?
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal in large quantities, the worlds ocean water has gradually become more acidic. Like global warming, this phenomenon, which is known as ocean acidification, is a direct consequence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earths atmosphere.
Prior to industrialization, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm). With increased use of fossil fuels, that number is now approaching 400 ppm and the growth rate is accelerating. Scientists calculate that the ocean is currently absorbing about one quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans are emitting. When carbon dioxide combines with seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce the seawater pH, hence the term ocean acidification.
Currently, about half of the anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon dioxide in the ocean is found in the upper 400 meters (1,200 feet) of the water column, while the other half has penetrated into the lower thermocline and deep ocean. Density- and wind-driven circulation help mix the surface and deep waters in some high latitude and coastal regions, but for much of the open ocean, deep pH changes are expected to lag surface pH changes by a few centuries.
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/how-the-ocean-works/ocean-chemistry/ocean-acidification/
Willard, please stop trolling.
pH in the great barrier reef daily goes up and down more than the alleged pH change of the ocean.
Its not acidification. pH of the ocean is alkaline. More or less alkaline is the correct science lexicon. Its not acid till pH is less than 7.
You should consider the pH levels before Holocene when 140 meters of current sea level was locked in continental ice sheets. Sea life has not suffered from the pH changes that occured then.
> Its not acidification.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
200ppm atmospheric CO2 during the last interglacial, against 280 ppm in the Holocene and 420ppm today.
During the glacial period thee ocean CO2 content would equilibrate with the lower atmospheric concentration and produce a higher pH than anything seen in the last 10,000 years.
Ken,
Ocean acidification refers to the fact that the average PH of the ocean surface has dropped 26% due to rising atmospheric CO2.
Here is some data: https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/ph.gif
This figure and the quote below are from a 2006 study:https://ibb.co/Y87wzgr
Where’s your data and/or studies?
In God we trust. All others must bring data.
A,
I hope you are not implying the existence of a GHE which you cannot describe, are you?
That would be pretty silly, and make you look like a fanatical, and clueless, GHE cultist, wouldn’t it?
Carry on avoiding reality.
Mike Flynn,
Do continue to play dumb.
Wonky Wee Willy,
I hope you are not implying the existence of a GHE which you cannot describe, are you?
That would be pretty silly, and make you look like a fanatical, and clueless, GHE cultist, wouldnt it?
Carry on avoiding reality.
Mike,
I hope you’re not implying that I’m implying the questions you beg.
But I do like when you beg.
Do continue.
Ken,
“Its not acidification. pH of the ocean is alkaline. More or less alkaline is the correct science lexicon. Its not acid till pH is less than 7.”
Sounds like you have never taken a chemistry course, not even a basic high school chemistry class.
Water is an acid, water is also a base.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner relapses.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Oh boy was I wrong. I expected a drop.
But this confirms for me what I stated earlier … UAH seems to over-represent the very high temperatures, though rather inconsistently, and under-represent the average temps and lower.
JRA-55 shows declining temperatures since Sept.
https://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_globe_t2m_recent_2023.png
Memories:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/trend-pat-michaels-and-ryan-maue-ride-the-crazy-train/
I was just providing commentary on the thread topic, which was that UAH is over-representing current temperatures.
I thought you were just providing a graph, Monkey Man.
Have you asked the chatbot about reanalysis?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner can’t resist being an asshat.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Koolin ahead
https://youtu.be/TR8-0WQKX_Y
Yep, any month now.
barrytard biting my ankle again
Are you saying that it will never get any colder?
Are you saying I’m saying it will never get any colder?
Thought Eben was hoping for more warmth! Now this..
Might or might not get a La Nina.
We had 3 in a row, and it didnt stop us from breaking warm records right after.
Of 8 international ENSO forecast groups, 1 has a possible la Nina beginning in June.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_5.png
2 of these groups forecast a possible la Nina beginning/continuing in July.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_6.png
Once again, there is the Spring Prediction Barrier caveat, which means significantly more uncertainty in forecasts just now.
Actually, CanSIPS shows La Nina by everyone else’s reckoning but BOM.
What month?
JMA are forecasting neutral through NH Summer. Do you have a link to CanSIPS?
I got CanSIPS from your first graph. It is below BOM’s 0.8 threshold, but above everyone else’s 0.5.
For July, I see 3 forecasts beyond the -0.5C threshold, and 4 forecasts short of it.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_6.png
The mean of these results is about -0.5.
For June, 2, maybe 3 forecasts are beyond the -0.5 threshold.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_5.png
Just remembered BoM SST anomaly threshold is at 0.8. That still leaves discrepancies between reporting if CanSIPs is saying everyone but BoM is forecasting Nina.
Are you saying that there will not be a La Nina?
Are you saying you can’t read what people say?
Claiming
NOT (A => B)
is logically equivalent to
NOT B
is RLH’s favourite fallacial argument.
And he believes no one can see through it.
I don’t think he can see through it.
Probably not. I think he subscribes to the belief of that other clueless denier, Ivar Giaever, that he is the smartest person he knows.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I made up a couple of Dad jokes.
My son found a two-leaf clover.
I said, “Half your luck!”
I asked my daughter if she’d rather be rich or respected.
She said, “Neither, Dad, I want to be just like you.”
I didn’t make up this joke but I like it a lot…
My wife is kicking me out because of my terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonations.
But don’t worry: “I’ll return!”
What is a “dad joke”?
Dad jokes are known for being short, a little lame, and not too crude. Jokes Dads tell to their kids.
I guess the following doesn’t qualify as a dad joke:
Q: Why are New Zealanders like sperm?
A: Because millions come out, but only one works.
It doesn’t, but it will do.
What did the Jewish Maori say?
Hey bru.
Theyve seen The Terminator?
I don’t have kids. Doesn’t stop me telling Dad jokes, though.
I asked my wife to rate my listening.
She said, “You’re an eight on a scale of ten.”
No idea why she wants me to urinate on a skeleton.
OK. That one was funny.
A dad decides HE will make the breakfast.
Declares
“I need absolute silence, I’m cooking an egg.”
Dunno why I keep my vacuum cleaner.
It’s only gathering dust.
I gave my son one last chance not to use his pipe whistle indoors.
He blew it.
A shirt I bought kept picking up static electricity.
I went back and they gave me another one free of charge.
You should try blindfolded archery.
You don’t know what you’re missing.
And still nobody can describe this mythical “GHE”, can they?
Not surprising, considering the GHE is mythical.
GHE [Greenhouse Effect] is related to the warming effect of manmade greenhouses. Which “trap” heat.
Specifically greenhouse structures build on the land.
On Earth, land cools and the ocean warms. Or greenhouses don’t cool as fast as other land surfaces.
GHE is also like a parked car with windows rolled up- but the term was used before there was parked cars with windows rolled up.
If a cars windows are not rolled up, the car’s interior isn’t warmed up as much. Or it’s about preventing convectional heat loss.
Other transparent surfaces, like oceans and lakes, also “trap heat” though such surface do have evaporational heat loss.
What inhibits evaporational heat loss is a higher vapor content in the air.
We live in an Ice Age, a Ice Age has drier air, as compared warmer global climate state, like a greenhouse global climate.
Sorry gb, but you haven’t been paying attention. The bogus GHE is NOT related to a real greenhouse, or to a closed car in Sun.
Both a real greenhouse and the car warm because warm air cannot escape, and the temperature rises, The atmosphere continually cools, emitting energy to space, That energy must continually be resupplied by Sun, or the planet would drastically cool.
Earth is ONLY considered to be in an “ice age” because of manmade definitions.
Clint R better term to clarify is greenhouse gases.
Or how is Ozone a greenhouse gas.
Or how is sulfuric acid of Venus atmosphere counted as a greenhouse gas. Or how are Earth clouds “greenhouse gases”.
Or define greenhouse gases.
“Earth is ONLY considered to be in an ice age because of manmade definitions.”
All definition are manmade. Or we had words for a long time, and dictionaries for a much shorter period of time.
Words are whatever people decide they are, dictionaries try limit meaning of words, so they is less confusion or add clarifition.
Otherwise everything in a cargo cult of nonsense.
What is airplane?
Something which can bring cargo and strange people. Or maybe related to acts of god.
As I said before, the confusion about Earth climate is related to Venus.
One ask the question is Venus a starship- does it keep warm without sunlight or when far from any star.
I think if Venus was at Earth distance from Sun, it would be colder than Earth is. Or it has less “greenhouse effect” as compared to Earth.
Or turn it around, if Earth was at Venus distance, it would be colder
than Venus rocky surface.
Most people who know anything, would agree.
But if talk Venus in terms 1 atm pressure [far from it’s rocky surface] and about Venus when it’s at Venus distance from Sun, most Venus is not very warm.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The past 8 months CANNOT be explained with just global warming and El Nio as the primary drivers. There is most definitely a third important variable. This is a plausible alternative.
One contender is reduced albedo.
Curiously supporting evidence comes from your old friend Paul Homewood.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/05/the-continuing-albedo-change-warms-the-earth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-co2/
The spike’s influence has manifested itself in areas unaffected by past ENSO cycles, such as the North Atlantic, to which I linked above, and the South Atlantic:
https://i.postimg.cc/7Yf4hyYp/Screen-Shot-2024-03-06-at-8-23-48-AM.png
The North Atlantic SSTs correlate with stratospheric temperatures and land surface temperatures. As you sceptics say “Correalation is not causation.”
At least until you can identify a mechanism.
That’s why we know the GHE is bogus. There is no mechanism for CO2 warming Earth’s 288K surface.
And what’s your point?
Arguing from ignorance does not a mechanism provide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well, the main point of my thread is to provide evidence that the spike is unrelated to ENSO, and show that the people who say so are full of shit. Going by the logic above of ENSO’s 4-5 month lag, July’s value of 0.64 deg. C reflected a -0.1 ONI value, which doesn’t make sense. Dr. Spencer acknowledged that at the time the report came out.
So, if no one thinks that is convincing enough evidence, I will go to greater lengths to support this. In these datasets, there’s no ENSO influence, which is good evidence that supports my position.
walter, no influence you say? Just with CO2 and ENSO alone R^2 = 0.63. Adding volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols bumps us up to R^2 = 0.72. Adding TSI and the seasonal effect gets us up to R^2 = 0.74. And the single factor removal for ENSO is R^2 = 0.21 while the single factor addition for ENSO after first detrending UAH is R^2 = 0.30. So yeah…ENSO has a significant effect especially on the shorter monthly timescales.
My mistake – not no influence; definitely some. But it can’t explain it by itself; I don’t think it’s the dominant contributor. It’s probable that Hunga Tonga has an indirect influence. There is something peculiar associated with the spike.
“walter, no influence you say? Just with CO2 and ENSO alone R^2 = 0.63. Adding volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols bumps us up to R^2 = 0.72. Adding TSI and the seasonal effect gets us up to R^2 = 0.74. And the single factor removal for ENSO is R^2 = 0.21 while the single factor addition for ENSO after first detrending UAH is R^2 = 0.30. So yeahENSO has a significant effect especially on the shorter monthly timescales.”
Your polished turd doesn’t reflect reality. You’re bringing a water pistol to a firefight and expecting to douse the flames.
walter: But it cant explain it by itself
No offense. But duh. We all know that. However, that doesn’t mean that ENSO has no influence. In fact, it has a lot of influence especially on monthly time scales. In fact, it is the primary reason for the existence of the recent spike. ONI spiked so TLT spikes.
Don’t hear what isn’t being said. It isn’t being said that ENSO perfectly explains the timing of the spikes. It doesn’t. It isn’t being said that it perfectly explains the magnitude of the spikes. It doesn’t. It isn’t being said there aren’t other influences. There are.
walter: Your polished turd doesnt reflect reality.
The skill of my “polished turd” is assessed against UAH TLT which I think most people would describe as reality. My “polished turd” has a skill of R^2 = 0.74 and 1m RMSE of 0.14 C and 13m RMSE of 0.07 C. That’s pretty good considering Christy et al. 2003 report the 1m uncertainty at 0.10 C and 0.075 C (1-sigma).
So here’s what I want you to do. Demonstrate just how much of a “turd” my analysis is by presenting your own analysis with better skill scores than what I came up with. Considering that what I did was equatable to a “turd” I’m expecting a much higher R^2 and much lower RMSE from a model that you fully document in your next post.
> it can’t explain it by itself
🧐
The North Atlantic shows exact correlation with the Hunga-Tonga eruption, while the South Atlantic shows a significant delay. The HTE produced multiple varying results. It may take decades to sort it all out.
Good sources, Walter.
I agree. I think Hunga Tonga played a role, maybe indirectly because of the time lag. I recall reading comments over Judith Curry’s summer of 2023 article about the eruption altering atmospheric circulation and reducing cloud cover, allowing more solar radiation to absorb into the planet. Then there’s, of course, the strong El Nio; these two variables can explain the spike.
Global warming’s role here is just in regards to where we currently are in the warming phase, making the peak higher than it would be if it occurred earlier.
thats right. we should be seeing a concerted effort by government to correctly understand these phenomena but like the pandemic response we are instead seeing a concerted effort to divert attention from these phenomena. Al Gore, Michael Mann, and UEA was the first of many such efforts to minimize natural climate change.
I am on to this planetary movement causing small moves of around 2k as seen in the jaggedness of the ice core records.
Ice core records are interesting especially with regards to the lack of skepticism surrounding them being an accurate records interglacial and glacial periods caused by Milankovitch orbital variation, especially with the warm periods. Orbital variation should have some kind of sinewave shape to it. But these waves as then smoothing rise into an interglacial reach a point where it looks like somebody chopped off the top of the sinewave at an angle. What could that be? That could be the highest levels of CO2 trapped in ice bubbles now swimming around the bottom of the ocean instead of being locked in the ice sheet.
And Milankovitch talk of orbital variation itself is totally wild. Get a load of this explanation of Milankovitch theory from a group of thinkers associated with Bill Nye the Science Guy and many others including prestigious institutions.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-pull-of-jupiter-and-venus-on-earth-causes-major-climate-events/
”That is, except every 405,000 years, when the gravitational pull of massive Jupiter and Venus yanks the earths orbit into an ellipse of about 5, producing the Milankovitch cycles that cause the planets glacial and interglacial cycles.”
Come on Venus doesn’t have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earth’s orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.
This half truth nonsense actually claims support from the following:
350+ Notable Experts
Including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Alan Alda, Margaret Atwood, John Legend, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Ariana Huffington, Sir Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Sara Blakely, Nick Offerman
Research Institutions
200+ Including MIT, Harvard, NIH, Oxford, Cambridge, University of Toronto, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Stanford, Yale
If there were a concerted effort the fake crisis would end within a few years. This isn’t hard to figure out if employ even a fraction of the resources as you have surrounding the modeling project. thats struggling because the scent dog is on the wrong trail.
“Come on Venus doesnt have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earths orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.”
It couldn’t possibly be more science that Bill just doesn’t get or hasn’t bothered to learn.
It can only be a conspiracy!
What he’s missing is that the Earth’s orbital changes occur only after many small nudges by the planets.
Wrong.
No link, no evidence, no credit.
No link, no evidence, no credit for your notion that a single planetary alignment should do something significant.
Because your thought-bubbles are not science.
Some evidence for you to reject:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=Over%20time%2C%20the%20pull%20of,departs%20from%20a%20perfect%20circle.
why do I need to refute that? Seems true to me and it’s you denying it.
It makes clear that the eccentricity variation period is 100,000 years and 400,000 y.
Which means it has to be the result of many MANY planetary nudges, not a single jerk as you ignorantly insisted it needs to be.
“Come on Venus doesnt have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earths orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.”
“why do I need to refute that?”
Because you just denied it here:
“What hes missing is that the Earths orbital changes occur only after many small nudges by the planets.
Bill Hunter says:
March 9, 2024 at 6:25 PM
Wrong.”
nate, the planets aren’t the only factor. i am early research and have found some tantalizing information.
in short the ice age pattern appears to be (and i am stretching here) related to a rotation of some kind of our solar system other than the galactical center since our rotation about the galactical center is variously estimated to take between 200 and 500 million years. supposedly the solar system is estimated to be ducking in and out of one spiral arm.
i only suspect objects within the influence of our sun to be responsible for the natural variation between solar grand minima and grand maxima. . .though some do argue the sun’s activity is not influenced by tides in its gas layers.
so i am just starting a pursuit of this that it might be and all i need is about a .6w/m2 impact arising out of this to account for the lia to grand maximum warming using the 3.0 sensitivity figures. if i get half that then i can account for half the warming. but who knows maybe sensitivity is even higher. but you chop down a tree by first cutting a notch out of it.
oops goofed above. i need .6% not .6w/m2.
Have fun with that. Be quantitative.
Sounds like it has nothing to do with recent history.
> Global warmings role here is just in regards to where we currently are in the warming phase,
🧐
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man rediscovers the dormitive principle.
The contrarian path is one of eternal bliss.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you don’t like my response, then elaborate further on your “🧐”.
Global warming is long-term, and we’re talking about a weather event here.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
“we should be seeing a concerted effort by government to correctly understand these phenomena”
Oooh, increased government spending on scientific research. Saucy.
the money being squandered on mitigation would be far more advisable spent on fixing Dr. Revelle’s concerns and even if it were used to enlighten Bill Nye that would be better too.
barry, please stop trolling.
Money to sue Fred might indeed have been a good idea:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Too bad there’s no statute of limitation for silly contrarian talking points.
he folded because he had no evidence of what he said was true. if he had the evidence he would not have folded. his only regret is he failed his Emperor.
> he had no evidence of what he said was true
Step 1 – pure denial.
No doubt true all you need for a defense is a reasonable basis for believing what you said. When you personally actually believe you do you reach out for help, you don’t cave.
Now in hindsight he believes the opinion of the family which he had no knowledge of at the time but firmly believes if he had fought he would have found that help.
But as I say all this demonstrates is a willingness to abandon your professionalism and surrender to your personal beliefs.
Since there is no professional obligation on the part of academic scientists beyond themselves having great pride in the science. . .you hear all the time that they have every right to engage in processes politically and advocate for themselves.
This isn’t an insult to the academic community. . .its just basic human nature. Choosing to submit to regulation has its positives and negatives. Mostly its great for the haves and not so great for the have nots.
“No doubt true all you need for a defense ”
Bill naively thinks you can easily win in court against the powerful or wealthy.
Fred Singer is neither powerful nor wealthy.
Here is the other side of the story. Pretty compelling. Science isn’t established by argument but by actually laying out the science. I have no doubt that Spencer, Lindzen, or Happer would hold the positions they hold if the actual scientific method showed they were wrong.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070513003344/http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
thats also why your arguments always fall short. When you try to lay out the science what did you come up with?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
Gill ignores the fact that Fred was back up by:
– the Heartland Institute
– the Competitive Entreprise Institute
– the CFACT
– the Institute of Public Affair (LOLOLOL)
– Exxon
– Donors Capital Funds
– Scaife
– the Koch Brothers
– Reynolds Tobacco Company
I probably forget half of his other backers.
Gill is just at Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
Didn’t Lancaster have Russia and China on his side?
Does Gill not know who SLAPPed Justin?
It is increasingly rare that any of Bill’s posts align with reality.
Bill,
From your source:
“bear in mind that the temperature cycles for which Jupiter and Venus may be responsible occur over a very long time, extending before we got here and continuing after.”
So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earth’s current warm spike, as you had tried to claim!
And oh BTW there was no transit of Venus last year as you had claimed..
yes a transit across the face of the sun is a rare event, but a transit through the space between the sun and earths orbit known as an inferior conjunction happens every 1.6 years.
According to Gill August the 13th was the hottest day last year.
And in 2022, it was in January.
ROFL
FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the sun’s disk is not called a Transit.
Inner conjuncts are a thing:
https://www.astrologybylauren.com/new-blog/2023/8/3/the-venus-conjunction-2023
It’s old astronomy talk.
Unless he meant transit of a constellation. Not so rare.
“Venus will transit in the sign of Aquarius on March 7, 2024, and will remain here till March 31, 2024. Venus is the planet of love, relationships, beauty, and comforts. Its movements through the zodiac greatly influence how we experience these areas of life.”
Willard says:
”According to Gill August the 13th was the hottest day last year.
And in 2022, it was in January.
ROFL”
———————
Strongman alert!
where did I suggest that Venus was the only influence on temperature variation?
Seems to me to be pretty darned boneheaded to constantly be looking for a single cause of global temperature variation. You know how solar cycles are too weak to be the cause of warming. And ENSO is too short. And Venus too small. And Russian disinformation so dependably invariable.
Fact is IPCC is only allegedly highly confident that CO2 accounts for 1/2 the observed warming. That adds up to a whopping .8degC per doubling of CO2 and where is the evidence that they even considered the effects of the 8 planets in our solar system? Milankovitch believed them to be a multitude of cycles that really had no peak in periodicity.
It takes hundreds of millions of years to go around the galaxy. 100,000 years is a cycle of either such precision or distance it needs to be teased out of the data. Yet there is no documentation for it despite it being widely accepted as the cause of the ice ages.
thats one heckuva lot of undocumented natural variation. One could spend years measuring the rate of change and come up with 100,000 years and be completely wrong.
Sheesh that was Strawman Alert!
What about Gill’s whataboutism?
“Seems to me to be pretty darned boneheaded to constantly be looking for a single cause of global temperature variation.”
But you get new thought bubbles that work for the moment.
Nate says:
”FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the suns disk is not called a Transit.”
”So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike, as you had tried to claim!”
”And oh BTW there was no transit of Venus last year as you had claimed..”
”FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the suns disk is not called a Transit.”
”Unless he meant transit of a constellation. Not so rare.”
—————————–
boy you are all over the place like a soup sandwich!
dictionary definition a transit:
”an act of passing through or across a place.
”the first west-to-east transit of the Northwest Passage” ”
i am referring to transiting the area closest to the earth. which is on the same side of the sun as earth is on.
obviously you are really having an unsuccessful argument claiming that has zero effect on earth’s orbit.
Willard says:
”Its old astronomy talk.”
willard is babbling again. i am not sure if he is claiming inferior conjunctions with venus no longer occur or if he is trying to discredit me by suggesting i am into astrology like he loves to do to skeptical scientists by suggesting they are in league with the oil company’s. either way i win.
Gill imagines that contemporary astronomers care more about inferior conjunctions than astrologers back in the days. LMAO!
Perhaps he could tell us about Nicola’s studies on Grand Conjunctions?
Bill, you want to do astronomy , but wont communicate it effectively if you use non-standard terminology.
Doesnt matter, cuz you are doing astrology.
So what did you mean by: ”So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike”?
Do you think gravity only works if venus passes across the sun’s face since clearly gravity was what the whole discussion was about.
“Do you think gravity only works if venus passes across the suns face since clearly gravity was what the whole discussion was about.”
No.
Science is quantitative. Your feelings about the significance of Venus’s gravitational effects are not.
You haven’t bothered to do the minimal back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your notion is plausible. One that any real scientist would do before blurting it out.
My ‘seagull sinks the Titanic’ story was meant to convey the point that without such a calculation, any silly scenario can look plausible.
Do you STILL not get that?
And you still have no data or papers to support your notion.
“So what did you mean by: So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike?
Did you not read the quote from your source that came immediately before my statement?
“bear in mind that the temperature cycles for which Jupiter and Venus may be responsible occur over a VERY LONG TIME, extending before we got here and continuing after.”
Which means ONLY over the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that are required for these planetary nudges to alter the Earth’s orbit, and thus alter the warming via solar insolation.
i did a back of the envelope and came up with a maximum venus effect around an anomaly of less than .05k so venus on the back side the oct anomaly would have been around .88k. i am not claiming that as it was a maximum. it may well be half that.
“i did a back of the envelope and came up with a maximum venus effect around an anomaly of less than .05k so venus on the back side the oct anomaly would have been around .88k.”
How? Show us your work.
You will when I am done. If you want to figure it out here is a good place to start. https://www.theplanetstoday.com/gravitational_forces_of_the_planets.html
“If you want to figure it out”
Sure, the effect is negligible.
You claimed to find a non-negligible numerical result by a simple calculation.
Yet you cannot show us that. Then it is not believable.
how would you know when you want me to show you how to calculate it?
You made the claim. No work no credit.
I made no claim. You asked me if I had bothered to do the minimal back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your notion is plausible. One that any real scientist would do before blurting it out. (the claim that gravity of other planets influenced the orbits of other planets). I said I had gave you a source of the force and the answer my calculation came up with and noted it could be off by a lot.
You on the other hand have flipped back and forth between gravity of other planets having no influence on the earth’s orbit, calling it astrology; to claiming it was like suggesting a seagull sinking the titanic.
So have you done a back of the envelope calculation and estimated a range of impacts on the recent global temperature anomaly? If so what number did you come up with?
No backsliding allowed, bill.
Your claim was about the global T spike of 2023 being cause by the planetary positions.
I pointed out a difference in this years earlier and stronger rise:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1634516
About 0.5 C larger jump over the last 6 months than previous stronger El Ninos.
You claimed:
“This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles of orbital interactions. Venus didnt pass in front of the Sun in 1998 until January 98 and maximum neutrality of Jupiter and Saturn didnt occur with only Saturn in the position of neutrality.
This past year Venus passed in front of the sun in August 2023.
Further the optimum Jupiter/saturn neutrality position was also achieved in August 2023.”
I am not proposing Nate that planetary movement accounts for everything.
We had on top of the planetary effect that has been building over the entire past 300 years the following:
HTE the largest explosion in a long time that went clear into the mesosphere. But perhaps due to the lack of dust all we got out of it was an ozone loss effect that was more closely aligned with the El Nino.
It seems alone ozone fixes itself a lot faster than the Montreal Protocol because it only banned the sales of cfc’s and worldwide there are still a lot of cfc’s in aging equipment. For example my grandfather who was in refrigeration built his own refrigeration system to live independently in a rural area when he retired. He had several 5 gallon tanks filled with freon to recharge his system. Who knows how much the cfc depletion curve is but actual ban only got started a few years before a natural ozone depletion cycle that comes and goes every 20 years.
Its so cyclic that one cannot say with certainty how much the ozone hole correlates to anthropogenic emissions of cfcs vs the natural planetary cycles.
this recent planetary cycle undid quite a bit of progress on the ozone hole, but we seldom see an analysis of worldwide ozone so its hard to correlate anything there.
Also we had an LIA recovery to a solar grand maximum that appears to have occurred via increasing solar activity over a period of 260 years plus post 1700 that no doubt built up a significant imbalance that is currently amortizing. . .such some of the warming seen isn’t just some instantaneous surface forcing by co2. That is likely playing out mostly as a loss of surface ice and a diminishment in cold upwellings on the ocean affecting the ocean SSTs, increasing feedbacks from evaporation and such.
And of course on top of that you have to add at least some impact from CO2 making cold places a little warmer from overhead airs hotter than the surface, if that effect isn’t already too near saturation to matter much at all.
Ok so “This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles”
is no longer the claim. It is now a potpourri of random guesses..
So next time, we can expect you to think through your declarations before you make them?
I can’t help you if you continue insist on a one track mind approach.
We were talking about peak El Nino’s which is a known phenomena and the temperature impact. All these things have multiple impacts underlying them. You just don’t want to discuss them even though I think every other poster in this forum is aware of them and they know as it appears you don’t know that El Nino peaks are not caused by CO2 but by a multitude of causes that when they line up the peaks get higher.
Nate says:
”It is now a potpourri of random guesses..”
Its now? Heck Nate it always has been except when our government and some of their lackeys have lied to us.
We know solar variation, ENSO, ocean oscillations, the variation of gravitational impacts on earth’s orbit, and variations of the various GHGs all have temperature impacts and are cyclical over a wide range of time periods.
Your comment above suggests you believe otherwise. . .and that’s exactly where the BS starts.
Bill, quit trying to blame others, and take responsibility for your false claims that you made.
nate which of those items i listed are you a denier of?
Was this your claim, or not?
This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles of orbital interactions. Venus didnt pass in front of the Sun in 1998 until January 98 and maximum neutrality of Jupiter and Saturn didnt occur with only Saturn in the position of neutrality.”
It is False.
Where is your proof its false Nate? I am talking an additional incremental value of an unspecified amount. We know there has been warming in general over the past 3 decades so we should expect most of the warming in embedded in that. I was referring to the early appearance of an El Nino effect that has to be driven not by CO2, not more than in part by ENSO, leaving a natural depletion of ozone by HTE or gravitational effects of 5 major planets in the same sector of the sky. HTE also would only be a portion of it so it has to be a combination of all those things we know and the one last thing you are denier of.
Bill we were talking about the 6 month warm spike of 2023,
You claimed: “This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles”
This WAS your claim. YOU cannot back it up. You cannot show us how such an effect should be non-negligible. Thus it is FALSE, ie unsupported by any facts.
And you appear to recognize this by moving on to
a ‘potpourri of random guesses’, many of which are irrelevant to the 6 month time frame of the warming spike being discussed.
“Also we had an LIA recovery to a solar grand maximum that appears to have occurred via increasing solar activity over a period of 260 years”
“It seems alone ozone fixes itself a lot faster than the Montreal Protocol because it only banned the sales of cfcs and worldwide there are still a lot of cfcs in aging equipment. ”
“HTE the largest explosion in a long time that went clear into the mesosphere. But perhaps due to the lack of dust all we got out of it was an ozone loss effect that was more closely aligned with the El Nino.”
“We were talking about peak El Ninos which is a known phenomena and the temperature impact.”
“We know solar variation, ENSO, ocean oscillations, the variation of gravitational impacts on earths orbit, and variations of the various GHGs all have temperature impacts and are cyclical over a wide range of time periods.”
If you are unable to see that these claims are or either red herrings for the 2023 spike, or plainly contradictory with your initial claim, then you are quite hopelessly confused.
Nate says:
”Bill we were talking about the 6 month warm spike of 2023,
You claimed: This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles
This WAS your claim. YOU cannot back it up. You cannot show us how such an effect should be non-negligible. Thus it is FALSE, ie unsupported by any facts.”
Perhaps but I am less guilty than you are when you reject Seim and Olson as not being an atmospheric model.
Fact is your theory calls for a green plate effect to occur from layer to layer in the atmosphere. Yet this green plate effect does not occur in Seim and Olson when CO2 is substituted into the experiment. Sort shoots a gaping hole in every angle you argue for what you believe CO2 causes the GHE.
You regale us with the theory that as higher and thicker the CO2 gets the more the warming and you have no experiment to tie that to actual effects. For you its good enough that it ”might” cause some unquantified warming. Pasting together blackbox computer models and claim they run on known physics is a complete lie because the ”effect” isn’t known physics. Its merely planted in the model.
Of course then you go on about how convection doesn’t extend into space and thus there must be some place that convection stops being a negative feedback. But even that is defied by facts. The atmosphere extends a 1000 km above the surface and up there there is 500k to 6000k oxygen species and they don’t warm the surface for what reason? They are too thin, their optical depth as so much thinned out with altitude they are impotent. . .and yet your model doesn’t provide a single iota of these deepening optical effect.
So yes I haven’t come up with the actual numbers. And I recognize that the HTE may also be a player in the temperature spike. Perhaps even a bit of the solar maximum though it is less than previous times. But one can argue the ozone effect is less to from HTE (though we have to guess at that from how large the antarctic ozone hole is rather than a measure of ozone atmospheric wide).
So I can appreciate your concern. The government should tackle the Milankovitch theory with even greater zeal that how it got sidetracked by total BS on carbon. The government claims to believe in the gravitational effects of the Milankovitch theory but for some reason doesn’t have research labs dedicated to building models of it.
Can you imagine why that might be?
It’s always fun to see the cultists stumbling around, hitting their heads against the walls.
Ent is so confused, he repeats the exact same comment!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638875
And he sticks with the same nonsense, from Ken: “Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2”
That nonsense actually comes from the bogus “CO2 forcing equation”. See here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
And notice Ken confirms the cult belief that ice cubes can boil water: “It’s clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.”
You just can’t make this stuff up….
Boiling is the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas or vapor.
The conditions needed to attain boiling point can be accomplished with ice cubes.
Too bad you can’t learn this basic physics concept.
Ken, your ignorance of the issue is magnified by your immaturity.
FOR ADULTS ONLY — This issue started with the cult claim that radiative fluxes simply add. That’s bogus because if it were true that would mean ice cubes could boil water. The flux from one ice cube being about 300 W/m². If fluxes simply added, then the flux from 5 ice cubes would be 1500 W/m². That corresponds to a temperature of about 260°F, plenty enough to boil water.
Once again, Clint R can’t even add and divide correctly since adults know five 1m^2 ice cubes add to 5m^2 of emission surface for 1500W/5m^2 or 300 W/m^2. Clint’s faulty science calls & humorous entertainment continue.
Ball4, get a responsible adult to explain to you what “FOR ADULTS ONLY” means.
Ball4, don’t be so ignorant.
Focus the infrared from the Sun, and you can easily boil water.
Focus the infrared from ice – from a square meter of ice emitting 300 W/m2, concentrate the radiation into 1 cm2. This will give an intensity of 300 x 100 x 100 W/m2. Yes, infrared radiation can be concentrated just like visible light! Use a germanium IR lens if you wish – you can’t see through it, but it concentrates IR nicely.
So you now have 3 million Watts per square meter focussed on a teaspoon of water. Watch the water not get hotter.
Have you managed to describe the GHE yet? What was the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? I suppose a delusional fanatic might say something really stupid like “there were no greenhouses around, so nothing to stop the planet cooling” – or something similarly idiotic!
Oh well, others are free to form their own opinions.
Focussing radiation from a source can only bring the temperature at focal point to the temperature of the source.
That’s why you can get more W/m2 focussing IR from ice but not enough to boil water.
And that’s why you can add fluxes from ice cubes but never boil water. The sum of all incident flux from any number of ice cubes can never exceed 306 W/m2. Each individual ice cube only supplies a fraction of 306 W/m2 to the receiving surface. Eventually you can fill the receiving surface’s entire field of view with ice cubes, and then, finally, you will have a grand total of 306 W/m2 incident on the surface.
barry,
And that’s why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.
As a matter of fact, a few thousand years ago, desert dwellers were making ice by exposing water to the “back radiation” beloved of GHE cultists.
According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of “back radiation” would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible. GHE cultists would claim that 333 W/m2 from “back radiation” is “hotter” than a maximum of 306 W/m2 (as you point out) emitted by ice!
As usual, the facts prove to be superior to the GHE cultist fantasies. No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Desert people know that cloudy nights are hotter than cloudless nights. That includes Aboriginal Australians, whom your pet industry dispossesses.
What are you braying about?
barry,
And thats why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.
As a matter of fact, a few thousand years ago, desert dwellers were making ice by exposing water to the “back radiation” beloved of GHE cultists.
According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of “back radiation” would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible. GHE cultists would claim that 333 W/m2 from “back radiation” is “hotter” than a maximum of 306 W/m2 (as you point out) emitted by ice!
As usual, the facts prove to be superior to the GHE cultist fantasies. No GHE.
“And that’s why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.”
You forget there is a heat source in the GHE that doesn’t exist in the silly discussion about ice cubes. This makes all the difference.
Putting a sweater on a corpse won’t cause the body to warm up.
Putting a sweater on a live body will.
The atmosphere is like the sweater, but the surface is not like the corpse.
As usual, Flynnson insists on distorting facts of physics to promote his agenda.
He doesn’t mention the temperature of the surrounding surface with his example of making ice in the desert. It’s well known that the surface can cool to temperatures below that of the air above, which is the cause of dew or frost after a cold, clear night. The same effect causes his water to cool enough to freeze under some desert conditions which result in large IR heat loss to the sky.
“According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of back radiation would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible.”
Ha. Swenson is fine with back radiation if its ‘cold rays’.
At least he is acknowledging that space is COLD. Then he ought to admit that stopping radiant energy from going directly to space, via CO2 or H2O abs.orp.tion, would mean LESS cooling during the night.
But he won’t, because that would require him to think.
hmmmm, uh for how many millions of years has the sky been warmer than outer space nate?
“Focus the infrared from ice”
Tee hee hee.
Science deniers are all confused about optics.
Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water.
Surround a drop of water with as much ice as you like. You will find the temperature of the water will not rise at all.
All irrelevant anyway. Not even the most fanatical GHE cultist can describe the object of their adoration – the mythical and mystical GHE!
You certainly can’t, so playing silly semantic games is pretty pointless, isn’t it?
Over to you.
You don’t need to raise the temperature of water to boil it.
You’re as deficient in knowledge of basic physics as Clint.
Ken, the issue is NOT about many different ways to boil water. The issue is about ice not being able to radiatively boil water.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639905
I bet you’re too immature to understand. Prove me wrong.
Puffman,
Ze issue has NOTHING to do with ice cubes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/2018-6th-warmest-year-globally-of-last-40/#comment-335673
Notice the date.
Ze issue is that this is not your first sock puppet who uses that silly talking point to goad and bait.
It doesn’t matter who is teaching poor Norman. He still can’t learn. He’s in a cult.
It matters that you’re a sock puppet, Puffman.
Clint, changing the parameters of the discussion is not an excuse for your broad ignorance of basic physics.
Clint, fresh water only boils at 100C when at standard atmospheric pressure. Every other situation is not ‘standard’.
If you don’t specify the conditions don’t expect the answer you think is in keeping with ‘Clint’s bizarre views of the world’.
Ken, in a moment of madness you wrote –
“You dont need to raise the temperature of water to boil it.
Youre as deficient in knowledge of basic physics as Clint.”
Presumably, you were responding to your own fantasy, because I wrote –
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water.
What has that to do with water boiling? Is your febrile brain reaching boiling point?
There is no GHE. If there was, you would be able to describe it – but you can’t! That because it doesnt exist. Accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Please, do continue your silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
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
Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.
An internal movement of heat expressed in the atmosphere by oxygen and the fact that convection only operates to move heat upwards via buoyancy principles. . .thus as much as the atmosphere with GHGs tries to cool the atmosphere there is convection operating in opposition to it.
We have argued extensively that cold CO2 molecules cannot warm warmer molecules. But hey the arctic, for example, can get to -90c in winter and air transported from the equator by convection is much warmer above. So yeah, CO2 theoretically can warm stuff.
The question is how saturated is the effect. And how much of the effect is being caused by CO2 being drawn out of the oceans by a warming climate. That’s when science is thrown aside and you start hearing nonsense from people trying to feather their own beds.
> The question is
Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
–Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.–
It seems more CO2 lead to warming {for a variety of reasons} but for whatever reasons {perhaps due to a variety reasons} any warming from the increase in CO2 has not been measured.
This fact suggest to me, that it could take a very long time for any warming to occur. And therefore when guess how much it is, I say within 100 years. Or it seems to me quite unreasonable to guess for say, +200 years.
And there is no {as in zero} agreement about how time more CO2 added will take to cause a certain amount of warming.
As for this:
“My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer…”
So, I guess the “without GHG” means without an ocean.
I have various problems with that. One thing is our ocean seems to part of shaping our rocky surface topography. And if you simply remove the ocean, you alter surface/ground topography “a lot”.
And the general accepted “idea” is that Earth’s topography has large affect upon global climate and global temperature. But how it does it exactly, and how much, could find a lot of disagreement.
“My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere. ”
That’s right.
Without CO2 and water vapour there would be no troposphere and no tropopause. The coldest densest air at the base of the stratosphere would be in contact with the surface and it would warm with increasing altitude until it reached the ozone layer. This pattern forms very stable layers and inhibits convection.
The surface loses heat only by radiation direct to space, with no absor*btion by the atmosphere.
There is a meteorological condition called a temperature inversion in which a cap of hot air forms over cooler air and stops convection. At the surface you get a couple of days of warming weather until the air near the surface is hot enough to break through the upper layer. Violent convection then forms thunderstorms.
— Entropic man says:
March 6, 2024 at 6:12 PM
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.
Thats right.
Without CO2 and water vapour there would be no troposphere and no tropopause. The coldest densest air at the base of the stratosphere would be in contact with the surface and it would warm with increasing altitude until it reached the ozone layer. This pattern forms very stable layers and inhibits convection.–
It does this on Venus. Though Venus has 3 atm of N2 and the rest is CO2. Which though a weak greenhouse gas, it is considered a greenhouse gas.
Wrong again, Ent.
The atmosphere, with gases absorbing/emitting photons at Earth’s 288K temperature, acts as a blanket with holes in it. Without those gases, the atmosphere would be a blanket with no holes.
That means the surface would be at a much higher temperature.
Clint R misses that the tropopause being much lower without any wv and CO2 means the 9.8K/km now dry T lapse rate only exists over much less distance thus the surface would be cooler than today. Also, cooler at each height up to the lower tropopause which would avg. around 255K globally.
Decent try though by Clint R with the atm. as blanket with holes analogy. Clint misses the dry lapse effects which is common in Clint’s amusing comments.
Wrong Ball4. The tropopause would be higher due to the increased surface temperature.
I don’t expect children to understand….
Ball4,
The lapse rate is just the rate at which temperature changes with altitude.
If calculations disagree with observation, your calculations are wrong.
Blathering about the troposphere won’t help create a GHE.
Clint, with added CO2 and wv the holes in your blanket close so THEN you get a higher surface temperature under the blanket due to sunshine and atm. shine. Clint R humorously has atm. science backwards. With less CO2 and wv, your blanket holes open up. Typical Clint R mistake.
—–
Swenson you need to actually build a greenhouse first, then you can create a GHE.
Ball4,
You nitwit – you can’t describe the GHE, can you? Why is that?
Its not clear what B4 believes here. he seems to be muddling through a list of talking points that span multiple theories of CO2 effects.
the pregnant question is why Arrhenius’ single layer theory of warming from cold rays now requires M&W’s unproven theory of convection being restricted by some mysterious force and what happens anyplace other than at the level of Vaughn Pratt’s greenhouse cover that did restrict convection.
Bill uses multiple “theories” of CO2 effects. To be more clear, Bill skips important physics & should obtain the pre-req.s to read up on optics and especially atm. optical depth as applied in the field of meteorology. This effort should result in Bill gaining knowledge of the planetary atm. window and how it opens and closes as applied to Clint’s holes in the blanket comment.
Funny you should mention that Ball4.
Since no energy is lost adiabatically, the temperature of TOA would be 341w/m2 peering through the optical depth. Increase the optical depth and it will still be a mean 341w/m2. Move earth closer to the sun or have the sun become more active and spew more watts and then the temperature you are looking at will change.
In other words, at equilibrium the room side of Clint’s blanket analogy with varying hole sizes remains the same kinetic temperature unless Clint changes the household furnace thermostat. Not bad, Bill.
“the pregnant question is why Arrhenius single layer theory of warming from cold rays now requires M&Ws unproven theory”
Argument by incredulity has become a crank favorite.
Bill is incredulous that science could have advanced over 7 decades.
“convection being restricted by some mysterious force”
Bill will never understand the physics in the paper that he endlessly bashes.
Physics claimed to exist but as of yet never demonstrated.
Its pretty clear where that the basis of the idea of additional energy being absorbed into the atmosphere, the problem is this place has not been demonstrated to actually change anything.
I got to the point of buying into a resistance to convection developing, but the problem as I see it with that theory is that condensation of water is not done by making something warmer.
Water is such an excellent radiator, and condensation releases huge amounts of additional energy one could construct a GHE out of that alone.
Its also the case that the simple act of absorbing upwelling LW is going to boost convection perhaps to the extent no warming results.
At least that is the standard that has existed for many decades prior to this old theory rising like a Phoenix out of the ashes.
Bill’s 11:53 am comment forgets measurements show “the simple act of absorbing upwelling LW is going to boost convection” also equally boosts downdrafts and downwelling LW for no change in surface warming per decade.
Downwelling LW maybe but not downwelling heat. Having some downwelling LW only changes how long it takes to get to the low temperature. We have seen Roy’s demonstration of rapid cooling in the early evening, with a quick leveling out. Only if a cloud bank comes in does it warm up some. Its only unsubstantiated theory that the net effects of the atmosphere reducing outgoing more than incoming and as of 1997 it was perfectly balanced. Only when it was discovered that it wasn’t warming as fast as it should did they come up with this ”estimated” imbalance and have been banking that now for a short time. That remains to be seen. Even a short stint of cooling will put the kibosh on that.
I can’t say yet with certainty but it does appear we are finally approaching the juncture of a new 80 year cycle, thus if AGW isn’t ALL has been made out to be. . .well with that imbalance cooling should never occur. Of course any imbalance there could still be a result of an LIA recovery so indeed that cooling event could be 20 years or more off into the future.
Clint R
I have a question you will not answer. Your post says the GHG act like a blanket with holes. Without such GHG it would be like a blanket without holes. Please explain what would stop IR emitted by the surface from directly going to space and cooling directly by radiant energy loss? As it stands only a small portion of IR emitted by the surface goes directly to space. You can disagree with this but you would be wrong.
Read my comment again, Noman. You’ve got it wrong, as usual.
Norman, you donkey,
You wrote –
“As it stands only a small portion of IR emitted by the surface goes directly to space.”
It doesn’t matter a jot. At night, the surface loses all the heat of the day – to the dark of outer space. Fast or slow – all gone, vanished, never to be seen again.
Try harder to convince others that the Earth hasn’t cooled over the past four and a half billion years, thus making a mockery of the GHE. No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – it doesn’t exist. Even a little bit.
No.
Without the GHGs the atmosphere would be all hole and no blanket.
Ent doesn’t believe in insulation, but he believes passenger jets fly backward!
Puffman still believes in skies shooting cold rays!
EM 6:12 pm, there would still be convection from the surface in that case as there is still a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field.
Thus, less troposphere and much lower tropopause would still exist at the equator and taper off toward the poles as today. Global OLR would still be reduced by N2,O2 optical depth for clear sky around 0.28 W/m^2.
Ball4,
Is your ignorance supposed to be evidence of your intellectual standard?
A parcel of air’s temperature changes not at all when the concentration of a particular constituent is changed. You cannot determine the makeup of a sample of air by measuring the wavelengths it is naturally emitting below excitation conditions, no matter what your fevered imagination tells you.
The facts are that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, making a mockery of GHE fanatics who claim otherwise. The surface cools at night, showing that all the heat of the day flees to space (plus a little of the planet’s internal heat).
Once again, making a mockery of fanatics who might claim that mythical GHGs have an6 heating power at all!
You aren’t silly enough to believe that the Earth has heated due to a GHE which you can’t even describe, are you?
Do tell.
There were no greenhouses built four and a half billion years ago, Swenson. Funny comment though.
Ball4,
Is your ignorance supposed to be evidence of your intellectual standard?
A parcel of airs temperature changes not at all when the concentration of a particular constituent is changed. You cannot determine the makeup of a sample of air by measuring the wavelengths it is naturally emitting below excitation conditions, no matter what your fevered imagination tells you.
The facts are that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, making a mockery of GHE fanatics who claim otherwise. The surface cools at night, showing that all the heat of the day flees to space (plus a little of the planets internal heat).
Once again, making a mockery of fanatics who might claim that mythical GHGs have an6 heating power at all!
You arent silly enough to believe that the Earth has heated due to a GHE which you cant even describe, are you?
Do tell.
The working greenhouse heats up under the sun, Swenson, allowing produce to be grown in the winter. Check with your local farming community.
“The working greenhouse heats up under the sun, Swenson, ”
Of course it does. And cools down in the Sun’s absence – like every rock or other inert object on the surface.
I see you managed to avoid mentioning the mythical GHE completely – a cunning move.
Go on, claim you don’t need the GHE when you have sunshine.
“Of course it does.”
Thanks for your actual GHE explanation, Swenson. Pity you can’t remember it from time to time reverting back to your mythical GHE.
The surface would warm the air immediately above it. It would start to convec t but he rapidly damped out.
Convection only occurs when the convecting air is moving through air cooler than it is.
Without GHGs the temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere would warm with altitude as the stratosphere does.
Under these conditions convection is rapidly damped because the convecting air quickly reaches the same temperature as the surrounding air
Ent, your knowledge of the science is as confused (upside-down) as your belief that passenger jets fly backward.
You don’t even understand how silly your beliefs are. In your “science”, heating a pan of water would cause the top of the water to be warmer than the bottom!
That’s why this is so much fun.
EM 8:00am, the midlatitudes stratosphere with current levels of IR active gases is observed isothermal for some 9km of z height since above the tropopause the fluid becomes warmed from above in a gravity field resulting in nil convection in that ~9km.
Reducing the wv and CO2 ppm from current levels, would lower the tropopause but not totally eliminate the troposphere.
“Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.”
Roy Spencer has spent several articles on this website explaining why that is so. Unfortunately, some hard-line ‘skeptics’ believe that this view comes from a “cult” of science. Seems odd, when Spencer is well-known for arguing against action on AGW, believing that the effects are insignificant.
The problem comes when the acknowledgement is made that CO2 could lead to some warming all of a sudden seas are rising by meters, hurricanes become so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth, and willard is sleeping with the cats again.
Its dumb~ass hysteria when the response should be how much warming is occurring as a result of CO2 (not much) and whether its a positive (likely) or negative benefit to the climate.
I got no problem with sleeping with cats, Kennui.
More than all the warming is caused by the CO2 we dump in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, and 3C might increase your condo fees in your retirement village. Your beau Pierre won’t be able to do anything about it, except to munch his apple in a manlier fashion.
“I got no problem with sleeping with cats, Kennui.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sure, screaming that the sky is falling is as useless as denying the GHE.
If only our conversations here didn’t have these issues.
Oh wait, no one here is screaming that the sky is falling.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry, please stop trolling.
I’ve noticed that a lot (not all) of the “sky is falling” comments come from contrarians. Obviously they are typically in the form of a strawman argument. The feigned incredulity at these “sky is falling” arguments that contrarians craft is irrational. I mean…if you don’t want people to think “the sky is falling” then stop creating faux “the sky is falling” arguments.
“Oh wait, no one here is screaming that the sky is falling.”
That’s because the sky is actually going up.
Bill Hunter
It seems you still have the incorrect understanding of GHE like many “skeptic” posters. They think the GHE postulates that the GHG, though colder than surface, will directly warm the surface. This is an incorrect understanding. Roy Spencer has pretty much clearly explained it as an insulating effect. In the case of GHE it is a radiant insulation.
You can see this with some research.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
You can use this website to make up a graph of TOA radiant energy. I made one for Nevada July, 2016 to August 2016. The outgoing Longwave radiant energy averaged around 290 W/m^2.
You can make a graph of surface emitted radiant energy using this tool.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
If you go to the Nevada desert site on this link you can get a surface emission of IR.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65e93013da554.png
The surface of the desert is emitting anywhere from 425 tp 625 W/m^2. The energy leaving from the TOA is measured at around 290 W/m^2. The atmosphere is definitely acting as a radiant barrier or insulation which causes a warmer surface with the same solar input than it would be without such a barrier.
Norman, you nitwit, there is no GHE. That’s why you are reduced to claiming that everybody else has described the GHE, but you are too incompetent or unhelpful to provide a copy of this purported “description”!
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, which rather makes a complete mockery of any supposed GHE, doesn’t it?
The fact that the surface cools every night shows that all the heat of the day is lost.
Carry on blathering about what could be, would be, or should be. Bad luck, it isn’t.
Facts outweigh fantasy every time.
Fact is greenhouses are used to allow the GHE to enable growing produce for profit even in the winter, Swenson. It’s a pity you aren’t up to speed on the science involved.
Ball4, you nitwit, you still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
That’s why you keep babbling about greenhouses! If you want to call sunlight GHE, go your hardest.
Maybe somebody even more ignorant and gullible than you will value your opinion.
Carry on.
norman…a trace gas can provide no insulating effect. The argument goes that CO2 is slowing the cooling from the surface and that is equally implausible.
There is no way that radiation can affect the rate of cooling of the surface. The rate of heat dissipation via radiation is dependent on the rate at which electrons emit it, which is pretty well instantaneously. The rate has nothing to do with anything in the atmosphere it’s a surface phenomenon.
On the other hand, the surface is cooled 260 times more efficiently by conduction/convection. The rate of that heat dissipation is based on Newton’s Law of Cooling which limits the rate to the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the surface.
It is also dependent on the phenomenon that heated air rises. If that was not true, the atmosphere and the surface would always be in thermal equilibrium and theoretically it would never cool. Lindzen alluded to that when he claimed that without convection the average surface temperature would be 70C. Lindzen seems to have been aware that radiation itself is a poor means of heat dissipation.
However, as heated air rises, cooler air from above rushes in to take its place and that cooler air produces a temperature differential. The larger the difference in temperature the faster the surface cools. There is absolutely no way a trace gas could do that since the temperature of the cooler air is dependent on the 99% of air made up by nitrogen and oxygen.
As far as the atmosphere providing an insulating effect, that is more a property of gravity acting on the air than the air itself. Gravity arranges molecules in a decreasing pressure gradient with altitude. That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the pressure. Eventually, the pressure peters out to zero pressure.
As pressure reduces in a constant volume, temperature must decrease as well. That’s not how an insulator works to affect the rate of transmission of heat. It is the atomic structure of the insulator that affects the rate of heat transmission. A metal is a good transmitter of electrical current and heat. An insulator resists the transmission of both.
Air is a poor transmitter of heat and electrical current. Heat through a gas is done via convection but there is no insulator that I know of that can change the rate of heat dissipation via convection.
The reason you believe the atmosphere cannot slow heat loss from the surface is your erroneous belief that the surface cannot absorb radiation from the atmosphere.
You believe that radiation from a cooler source doesn’t have enough energy to cause electrons in the receiving body to transition to a higher energy level.
The energy carried by a photon is proportional to its frequency (inversely proportional to wavelength). The atmosphere does not have one single frequency in which it radiates, but multitude. The surface does not have a single-frequency emissiveness, but a broad band of frequencies.
The IR spectra of the surface and the atmosphere greatly overlap.
This means that each can absorb radiation in the frequencies they share.
The atmosphere is made up of gases with discrete spectral bands, unlike the surface, which has a broad, almost black-body Planck curve. The surface is much more able to absorb the atmosphere’s radiation than the atmosphere is able to absorb of the surface.
That is why there is an “atmospheric window,” where radiation passes cleanly through the atmosphere to space. The surface has no “window” to allow atmospheric radiation to pass through.
Now, imagine you were right and the surface could not absorb atmospheric radiation.
In this case it would reflect atmospheric radiation, which would immediately be absorbed by the atmosphere, and the atmosphere would still slow the radiative heat loss of the surface as the radiation bounced downward and reflected back more and more, as more GHGs accumulated.
But your view is wrong. The surface does absorb atmospheric IR. And the heat flow is always from the warmer object to the cooler. The intensity of radiative exchange differs, but vectors of radiation are not flows of heat. Heat flow is determined, as always, by the NET radiative exchange.
barry,
The surface cools every night, radiating away all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Esrth’s internal heat. Hence, the Earth being cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.
No GHE in sight. Boo hoo.
barry says:
The reason you believe the atmosphere cannot slow heat loss from the surface is your erroneous belief that the surface cannot absorb radiation from the atmosphere.
You believe that radiation from a cooler source doesnt have enough energy to cause electrons in the receiving body to transition to a higher energy level.
———————-
It doesn’t make any difference if you believe that or not. The radiation that you are talking about already departed the surface and if you get half back you still cooled by half and the atmosphere remains equally ready to receive another dose of radiation from the surface. thats the case if I give you $10 and you give $5 to me and $5 to your uncle in space. You remain poor and I am $5 poorer and the only person who got ahead was your uncle in space.
Adding GHGs gives you $6 back for every $10 you give out. Now uncle is only getting $4. The rules are that everyone shares equally, So you’re going to have to give me $12 to keep things square with uncle.
barry,
The radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface.
If you try to describe the GHE as “a stack of blankets” or “not cooling, slower cooling”, you will just engender laughter from someone who will point out that at night, the surface loses all the heat of the day.
You seem severely handicapped as far as accepting reality is concerned.
There is no GHE.
“There is no GHE”
The difference between scientists and cranks, like Swenson and several others that visit us, is that scientists gather evidence, pose hypotheses, make theories, that are inherently provisional, falsifiable, have uncertainty, and always require more testing.
Whereas cranks just declare stuff, and are always certain about it, even when its nonsense.
Wild Bill and barry, the “dollar analogy” doesn’t apply to the GHE nonsense.
Do you know why?
There is a good argument for zero GHE.
The way we calculate it takes the diameter of the earth, treat it like a disk and estimate how much radiation hits the ground.
So what is wrong with that?
1) disagreement on the mean radiant power of the sun. The 1361w/m2 bandied about is a reading taken during 2008 at the bottom of the smallest solar cycle ever recorded with instruments. Woods Hole and
others use 1380w/m2. what is the mean? Apparently nobody knows.
2) the disk size used. The atmosphere extends up to 6214miles about the surface and it has absorbing gases in it such that the thermosphere can warm to 6000k. The disk size we use is only 16% of the actual disk size of the earth system.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/atmosphere/
Meanwhile we don’t really have complete darkness. for example tonight in San Diego when most people think the daytime is 11 hours and 42 minutes its actually 14 hours 26 minutes when you include twilight. And of course the sky even beyond twilight has ground exposure to absorbing atmosphere molecules on the periphery. Well beyond sunset and before sunrise you can see light reflected off the bottom of clouds.
3) then you need to consider all means of heat transport when establishing the benchmark for a non-greenhouse atmosphere. Since the mean sunlight suggests a temperature around 279k and our temperature records are warm biased by UHI and the selection of locations.
4) Its also a fallacy that the surface heats the atmosphere and the opposite isn’t true. The polar regions are warmed by the transport of equatorial and temperate airs into the polar regions creating a natural warming of the polar surfaces when no direct sunlight is hitting it.
5) one needs to keep in mind Stefan and Boltzmann that albedo doesn’t effect equilibrium temperature. So even if reflected at elevation that elevation should be at ~279k and it is 279k the surface will need to be at least 279k through conduction and convection and to that we need to consider how much more energy comes from atmosphere reflection and hot gases like the oxygen in the thermosphere.
I would have to assume that the gap between 1361 and 1380w/m2 is what we have seen in the satellite era and that it is a measure only of direct sunlight impinging on the entire disk system making even an estimate of what the mean temperature should be a fairly wide guessing game.
Its no small wonder to me why a great scientist like Roger Revelle would be reluctant to proclaim that the science was there on the issue of carbon dioxide. But when money gets spread across a wide table their are plenty of opportunists willing to leap right in and grab what they can. . .and that can be the genesis of even larger parades. One has to ask where the accountability comes from.
> There is a good argument
Inspecteur Clouseau found ze argument!
That’s one of your funnier ones, Wild Bill. I didn’t read the whole thing but your “…such that the thermosphere can warm to 6000k” was a winner. You’ve got Sun warming to a higher temperature than its emitting temperature!
Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s the temperature of the core of the Sun, and how much lower is it than what one could get by colliding together beams of bare gold nuclei?
“Its no small wonder to me why a great scientist like Roger Revelle would be reluctant to proclaim that the science was there on the issue of carbon dioxide.”
In 1991.
Deniers always forget that we’ve had 33 more years to observe the effects of AGW!
nature warms in exactly the same way nate. it warms in ways that can also be observed. so thats not evidence of co2 causing the warming.
Revelle’s family says:
Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense – measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.
Revelle never failed to point out that there are both established facts and remaining uncertainties about greenhouse warming.
[…]
Revelle noted favorably President Bush’s proposal to plant a billion trees a year for the next 10 years, which could accumulate substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Revelle would have been happy to see public spending of several billion dollars annually to promote tree growth worldwide.
All of us remember our father’s frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the “wait and see” approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu’s ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, “I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration’s environmental policies.”
Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20180918123656/http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen/carolyn-revelle
… and still no reference on the Web showing ‘Woods Hole’ together with a solar irradiance of 1380 Watt/m^2.
The Hunter boy’s posts on this blog, best know to always lack references backing up his gut feeling based claims, are the only connection between the two.
“nature warms in exactly the same way nate.”
No it doesnt.
Eg nature doesnt cool the stratosphere while warming the troposphere, the same way.
Which is one among many other pieces of evidence gathered in the intervening 33 y.
barry, i agree that revelle considered it a potential risk. however, bringing his family in to testify pierces the ”professional” obligation of differentiating between fact and belief.
Gill asks for a sammich.
Gill gets a sammich.
Gill rejects the sammich.
Gill asks for another sammich.
An ordinary day in the auditing world.
I wouldn’t be surprised Willard that you never shared your deepest ”feelings” with your wife.
“however, bringing his family in to testify pierces the ‘professional’ obligation of differentiating between fact and belief.”
When disputing what someone believes, the testimony of those closest to them carries weight. There is more evidence that Revelle was misrepresented in his dying days by the Singer paper, but as you have already said that Revelle thought AGW a matter of concern there is no need to keep going.
Barry doesn’t get that Dr. Revelle believed CO2 to likely be a problem but wasn’t going to sacrifice his credibility as a scientist and proclaim that it is scientifically known to be a problem. Like there is no problem with a scientist believing in God; but its not at all credible for a scientist to proclaim that science has proven that God exists.
Bindidon says:
”The Hunter boys posts on this blog, best know to always lack references backing up his gut feeling based claims, are the only connection between the two.”
Bindidon is once again using his gut feelings to proclaim a fact.
too bad for Bindidon. Obviously incapable of typing in: woods hole solar constant into a google search.
https://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/mvco/description/SolRad.html
Gill does not seem to realize that recycling the “but Revelle” talking point shows he has no qualms regarding any evidence that does not go his way.
But then since he has been going all in with “But Seim & Olsen” since a year or so, it already was public knowledge.
What will he try next?
Deniers latest squirrel:
What a long-deceased scientist must have been thinking then, and what he would have thought now, 33 y later.
Like the never-ending LIA recovery, it is yet another unfalsifiable crank ‘theory’.
So Nate went to see his local psychic and concluded that he knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.
My opinion is based upon what I know about Revelle’s integrity. He is a true scientist unmoved by the CAGW goldrush.
he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp as to an opinion, which is strongly supported by observation and slowly emerging but heavily suppressed science of other actors in the climate drama.
That is in no way a claim of no GHE effect from CO2. Arctic amplification is a real possibility but one still must distinguish between warming caused by the atmosphere and warming caused by the stripping of insulation off the top of the Arctic Ocean by warmer ocean currents in this time of the globe warming. . .as it clearly is shown to do naturally on a multi-centennial scale.
“knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.”
Not at all. Im simply pointing out the obvious, that YOU don’t know.
And thus it is pointless to bring it up.
I have published papers with multiple authors, and thus understand that it is not uncommon that papers are written by one author, and others have less influence on the final wording.
It can certainly be the case, that if one co-author is ill, as Revelle was, that they might simply let the others handle it.
“So Nate went to see his local psychic and concluded that he knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.”
But OTOH Bill does know:
“he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp as to an opinion”
LOL!
Of course he would Nate. Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.
“Barry doesn’t get that Dr. Revelle believed CO2 to likely be a problem but wasn’t going to sacrifice his credibility as a scientist and proclaim that it is scientifically known to be a problem.”
The trumped up hair-splitting, ostensibly to preserve the reputation of a scientist you care so much about, is actually a foil to cast doubt on the risks of AGW. And didn’t you just rag someone for being clairvoyant about Revelle?
Your rationalising is transparent, Bill, and political rhetoric on a science board is boring.
Nate says:
nature warms in exactly the same way nate.
No it doesnt.
Eg nature doesnt cool the stratosphere while warming the troposphere, the same way.
———————
you should review your 3rd grade physics lessons nate. warming is not cooling.
barry says:
The trumped up hair-splitting, ostensibly to preserve the reputation of a scientist you care so much about, is actually a foil to cast doubt on the risks of AGW. And didnt you just rag someone for being clairvoyant about Revelle?
Your rationalising is transparent, Bill, and political rhetoric on a science board is boring.
——————————
wrong barry. i was just saying the record is consistent. dr. revelle who i knew was a very careful scientist. and i have no reason whatsoever to dispute what dr. revelle may have shared in his home with his family. if you don’t understand the obligation of a professional to hold to the standards of his profession versus surrendering to his personal beliefs and/or self interest that just makes you an ignorant man.
“Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.”
Lindzen is a theorist. His famous ‘IR Iris’ theory has not been confirmed by observation. So apparently it was wrong. Oh well!
But go ahead and keep telling us more about what a long dead guy thinks.
Nate says:
”Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.”
Lindzen is a theorist. His famous IR Iris theory has not been confirmed by observation. So apparently it was wrong. Oh well!
——————–
Nope! seems to be a good explanation for the time being for why the models are wrong. At least a better explanation that the models.
Nate says:
But go ahead and keep telling us more about what a long dead guy thinks.
—————————-
Nobody knows what he thinks. I didn’t start this tread. Seems to me it started with somebody trying to claim what he thinks. I merely added that we don’t know what he thinks and what we do know is what he said in interviews, seminars, and publications.
If his family contends he said something different to them I am not the one to argue with that, but can understand why that might be the case. Perhaps thats above your pay grade though. But clue one would be it is different than what he said in interviews, seminars, and publications.
> Nobody knows what he thinks.
Gill underestimate the level of his own ignorance. He knows almost nothing about Roger compared with whom Roger spent his life.
And that is notwithstanding that the ignorance from which Gill argues is voluntary.
Willard is conducting daily seances to glean what Dr. Revelle thought rather than simply read what he wrote or watch videos of his seminars on the topic.
Gill claims he does not see the bills he is counting in Fred’s dirty hands.
Willard doubles down on a claim that academia is not to be trusted because there is no way to tell the difference between science and political science.
We are getting closer to agreement Willard on just about everything Willard.
“I merely added that we dont know what he thinks”
Oh and also that you do know what he would probably think.
“he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp”
You need to do a better job of keeping track of what you claimed.
Gill loooooves the words Fred put into Roger’s mouth under duress.
Nate we have two stories here. We have what Dr. Revelle said in his role as a scientist to the public on numerous occasions. That was a consistent statement that CO2 was a potential problem but the science wasn’t there yet and that was long after M&W had published their paper.
Then we have what allegedly he said privately to his family.
I have been licensed as a professional and I have a family. As a professional you don’t express your beliefs or feelings. You instead express what you know to be factual via the tools of your profession. Hopefully you don’t treat your family to that sort of stoic objectivism and you can open up your feelings. Its really not controversial at all.
Its simply the case that a lot of people with strong beliefs and a lack of evidence still want to convince people otherwise by name dropping. . .and they do whatever they can. They make wild predictions that never come true. They exaggerate the evidence. They try to make natural climate change to disappear including the MWP, and the LIA. They select cherry picked trees to build a proxy case when it is well known that other weather conditions besides warming can alter their growth, they suppress papers written that sheds doubt, they get editors and other professional experts fired when they don’t conform, they insult those that they can’t fire, they accuse them of selling out (which is definitely a freudian projection since they already did), they call them ”deniers” to associate them with holocaust deniers, they build science cases by references to works that don’t apply to their current claim, etc. One could go on and on about all the effort to suppress information. Of course you can’t do that to Dr. Revelle as he is the Grandfather of Global Warming so it must be somebody else misrepresenting his views.
Simpler than that – there is the story told by those who knew Roger, and there is the fabrication from a professional fabricator, which is endorsed by a Sky Dragon crank.
Tough choice.
“convince people otherwise by name dropping”
which is exactly what you are doing here!
And assigning your opinions to this long dead person.
Hardly professional or ethical.
Nate says:
”Oh and also that you do know what he would probably think.
”he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp” ”.
All the good scientists I know lean toward the proof and the observation vs new theory.
Einstein was acutely aware of that about his theory. Thus in the face of the failure to widely convince those such that you had a lot of scientists debating over the issue, Einstein provided an means of proof via observation, which after carried out successfully united the science community.
So yes Revelle would be one of those who would be convinced by observation as many are today. Most of Roy’s posts of the last few months has been focused on that very topic.
Gill now thinks he’s Einstein or something, whom I’m sure would have ditched his theory the first times they tried to test it and failed.
LOL!
“So yes Revelle would be one of those who would be convinced by observation as many are today. ”
Agreed, since we now have 33 y of additional and increasingly sophisticated observations.
And unlikely as you do, Bill, to reject evidence simply because he doesnt understand the science.
which science have i rejected nate?
Playing dum and changing the subject.
No thanks!
Nate fails again to support his position in any way or shape or form.
Gill returns to Step 1.
You have to with Nate he never gets to step 2. You know where he describes in detail how a cold CO2 warms anything warmer.
“Nate fails again to support his position in any way or shape or form.”
Bill SHAMELESSLY pretends his opponents havent made any sound arguments in this lengthy thread.
Neutral readers can plainly see this is a BS.
“which science have I rejected nate?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1647082
Just one of many examples.
An no, Im not going down another rabbit hole repeating all the previous arguments.
observations have not attributed the warming to CO2 Nate thus thats not science. one must fully quantify Milankovitch theory before one can even make an argument from ignorance half way plausible. instead all they have done is resort to lies about Milankovitch.
“one must fully quantify Milankovitch theory”
Do you literally just randomly toss out sciency sounding words?
what you don’t understand is it takes more than a radiant barrier to create insulation.
this is simple fact that is demonstrated very well in the seim and olson experiment here: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
this experiment is merely a repeat of science known for many years and in the 1970’s was established into standards and enforced
by the ftc against shysters selling the products like tinfoil to gullible customers as an inexpensive way to insulate.
so yes you can build insulation systems using radiant barriers when you also control convection. so that argument is a non-starter.
Gill has returned to Moshpitian syntax.
LOL
“what you dont understand is it takes more than a radiant barrier to create insulation.”
Bill oddly still doesnt understand that there are three modes of heat transfer.
And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer, which is the POINT of insulation.
Nate says:
”Bill oddly still doesnt understand that there are three modes of heat transfer.
And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer, which is the POINT of insulation.”
Wrong! If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.
“If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.”
Bill shamelessly obfuscates, or plays DUM.
He increases the effectiveness of one mode of heat transfer (conduction) a shit-ton, while simultaneously decreasing the effectiveness of another one (radiation).
And acts surprised that heat transfer efficiency improves.
Bill,
“Wrong! If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.”
Yes, but you are changing two methods of heat transfer when you put the plates together.
So calm down.
glad you agree with me.
Bill is good at arguing with what people didn’t say.
I said you were wrong and his response to my explanation was ”yes”.
I said: “And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer”
And you deny this, by giving an example of reduced radiation and INCREASED conduction.
Stop spreading manure.
Nate says:
”I said: And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer
And you deny this, by giving an example of reduced radiation and INCREASED conduction.
Stop spreading manure.”
You are jumping to a conclusion that reducing net radiation out results in a restriction of heat transfer. To show that you must show that convection is restricted because it operates to fill that void and only stop when the void is filled.
Coming up with a model that does that by applying some kind of non-scientifically designed atmospheric forcing both 1) assumes heat transfer is restricted; and 2) that convection would not provide massive negative feedback.
One of the canards of your side is the surface heats the atmosphere when in fact its a joint exchange of heat with, in general, the surface heating the atmosphere during the day and the atmosphere heating the ground during the night. CO2’s opportunity comes at night.
the reason that most of the significant heat records occurred in the 1930’s was the emerging solar grand maximum was powering up at that time and actively building an imbalance to be amortized later. There is more, AGW was flagging and they went hunting for the missing heat post 2009 reorganizing the temperature record so that it covered 90deg to 90deg vs 80deg vs 80deg utilizing climate reanalysis models to plug in additional warming beginning in 2014. That was accompanied with new efforts to measure the arctic post 2007 ice loss and the alarm bell went off about Arctic warming.
Gill guy continues to confuse the use of reflective radiant shields in buildings with atmospheric processes, writing:
Gill doesn’t grasp the fact that atmospheric convection can not move any thermal energy beyond the Tropopause. As a result, if the GHE increases, it would indeed increase convection within the Troposphere, which would raise the pressure altitude of the Tropopause, which would, in turn, increase the surface temperature, given a fixed lapse rate. There are reports that the tropical Tropopause altitude has increased in recent years.
The rest of his rant is just another version of the old denialist claim that “they changed the data” to show more warming.
tropopause altitude should increase with any kind of warming source Swanson. nobody is denying that it is warming. no question that some of it is coming from co2. but there is no honest and concerted effort to find an answer to how much is attributable to the natural warming as the public is fed bs by the government and their corporate/institutional lackies while the general citizenry gets financially raped.
Gill guy ignores the fact that climate models routinely include known climate influences in their construction, such as volcanoes, solar activity and man made aerosols, such as that from SO2 emissions and black carbon. Perhaps he should provide documentation to support his assertions. Naa, he ain’t gonna do it, as usual.
All they have been doing Swanson is shoveling BS. The IPCC attributes ozone for the ghg effect while the UN enviromental program has been bragging that the Montreal Protocol saved us from another half degree of warming
The effect of ozone is to absorb ultraviolet light that otherwise would hit the surface (remember all the sunscreen cautions coming out of the 90’s when the ozone hole was growing?)
Somebody at the UN is obviously wrong.
Gill guy tosses out another red herring about stratospheric ozone. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is formed by the reaction of UV with O2 over the tropics. Once formed, it acts like a GHG. It’s then transported to the polar regions, where it was being destroyed by CFC’s during Austral Spring, causing the Ozone Hole. Another example of Gill’s ignorance, I suppose.
You listen to way too much propaganda Swanson.
this Kto12 study plan will help you get it straightened out.
https://www.ck12.org/book/cbse_biology_book_class_xii/section/21.7/
Gill guy thinks my simple description is wrong somehow, offering a link regarding the problem of ozone loss in polar regions. The link emphasizes the fact that the Ozone Hole is the result of ozone destruction in polar spring, especially over the Antarctic, as solar energy arrives to the region.
Reading the text, I found no mention of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation, which
So what is your point? You make this flat out statement: ” Ozone in the upper atmosphere is formed by the reaction of UV with O2 over the tropics.” as some kind of evidence that what I said was wrong.
And you statement is essentially BS. Ozone is produced in the stratosphere world wide. The fact that there is a circulation pattern that moves ozone toward the poles is the same process that occurs in the oceans. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. You are just jibber jabbering because you really have nothing to say at all.
Its not even certain that mankind had a major impact on ozone. It does appear likely it had some impact.
It certainly can’t be ruled out, but there are long term natural climate processes at work that causes ozone to fluctuate. We saw some of that just in the past year and quite honestly we aren’t going to know for sure about mankinds contribution to this perhaps for another century or two. . .(based on observations of natural variation alone).
Gill guy thinks his earlier comment was OK. He wrote:
He now doubles down, writing:
Gill retreats with another example of the denialist manifesto, “It could be part of a natural cycle”, without any supporting proof what so ever. Gill forgets that a couple of folks got Noble Prizes for explaining the chemistry behind the ozone depletion in the Antarctic Ozone Hole. It involved CFC’s, which have now been mostly banned, but which are still being emitted as older equipment is scrapped.
But, here’s a post HS quiz for Gill: “What’s the cause of the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause?”
Notice that Gill returns to Step 2.
”compliance with the Montreal Protocol avoids global warming of approximately 0.5-1 C by mid-century”
https://tinyurl.com/ycyn662v
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Gill guy, so ozone is a GHG, who knew? But, you are avoiding the question: Whats the cause of the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause?
LMAO! yes ozone also absorbs IR.
In this case Swanson we would have gotten .5-1.0c warming from a reduction of ghgs. please pay attention!
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/images/ozone-uv/FIG-FAQ10.jpg
MEGALUL
Gill guy wrote:
As I read the report, it concluded that:
.
In other words, there would have been an extra warming had the Protocol not been accepted.
Yes you interpreted that correctly Swanson.
But you don’t seem to realize that the impact that comes from the LESS ozone (thus lesser ghg effects from ozone) if the protocol had not be implemented.
If the protocol had not been implemented we would have LESS ozone, thus LESS IR radiation from ozone (because of less ozone and thus less ghg effect) if there is a surface effect from ghg, that would mean we would cool.
So the warming is arising because the decreased ozone would neither be absorbing IR nor UV.
The IR would go to space and the UV from the sun would reach the surface.
so we would have so much more sunlight hitting the surface it would first override any cooling resulting from fewer ghgs; and we would still warm by .5 to 1.0 degrees.
Do you see the problem here?
Gill guy doubles down, arguing that the projected extra warming would have resulted from a reduction in stratospheric ozone by 2050. He wrote:
His reply further extends his scenario for how such would play out, completely ignoring the basics in the report, which focuses on the effects of uninhibited emissions of several ozone destroying chemicals. These chemicals are also GHG’s and their amounts now in the air have been reduced after the Protocol’s limits on emissions went into effect. The reports conclusions are for the combined effects at the surface of both the loss in ozone and the addition of those chemicals.
Of course, Gill’s simple scenario contains no basis in science, since he refuses to accept the validity of models used to study such problems, including the effects of increasing CO2.
Hmmmm, so if the cfc’s don’t quickly breakdown and instead hang out acting like a ghg and warming the planet .5c to 1.0c over the next 25 years acting like a ghg why did ozone virtually stop declining almost immediately in 1995 (with some suspected continued unreported emissions still continuing)?
Gill guy, perhaps you should read the full report, not just the ES. That said, see Figure ES-3. CFC-11 global emissions and reported production. The problem is just another example of the can of worms from our indiscriminate use of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for our waste. And, one can’t begin to approach all the issues without relying on models.
So you have no idea. You are just against dumping anything.
Gill guy, When I lived in the SF Bay area back in the late ’60’s, I found that the local air pollution made me sick, most likely due to CO from all those hot muscle cars (including the one I owned). For this (and other reasons) I moved away. Bad career move. So, yes, dumping all sorts of crap into the air is a bad idea and some chemicals are worse than others, long term.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68613502
But, that’s way off topic regarding your distractions about the climate impacts of the results from the Protocol implementation.
you brought that point up. and of course so far its 100% of your concern and rationale.
Gill is actually the one who peddled the ozone bit.
LOLOLOLOLO
Willard echos the big DUH from Swanson as he has no idea of the science behind the ozone response either. Are you just against dumping of anything too?
Gill has yet to recover from Captain’s Joe Union Address.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOOOOOLLL
And Willard keeps parading about wearing his badge of ignorance.
Gill guy can’t get it thru his thick skull that to understand the potential and actual effects of emitting CFC’s, other ozone destroying chemicals and the chemicals which replaced them requires understanding the atmospheric models used to assess the problem. I can’t claim to understand the models because I’ve not actually worked with such models. But, neither can Gill claim any greater understanding, though reading the entire report might enlighten one regarding the latest scientific efforts.
Of course, Gill routinely poo-poos climate models as imperfect, so he has painted himself into a corner, as he thus has no other way to perform any analysis.
BTW, Gill, can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause? Perhaps you could provide a reference or two to support your reply.
E. Swanson says:
Gill guy cant get it thru his thick skull that to understand the potential and actual effects of emitting CFCs, other ozone destroying chemicals and the chemicals which replaced them requires understanding the atmospheric models used to assess the problem. I cant claim to understand the models because Ive not actually worked with such models. But, neither can Gill claim any greater understanding, though reading the entire report might enlighten one regarding the latest scientific efforts.
—————————
well at least you are honest in your yielding to authority.
the question is where does claims of people having thick skulls come
from. maybe you should leave it to those without a thick skull.
Gill continues to ignore basic science.
Can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause? Perhaps you could provide a reference or two to support your reply, even though that would be an appeal to authority, which he categorically rejects.
”Ozone, a type of oxygen molecule that is relatively abundant in the stratosphere, heats this layer as it absorbs energy from incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Temperatures rise as one moves upward through the stratosphere.”
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/stratosphere#:~:text=Ozone%2C%20a%20type%20of%20oxygen,moves%20upward%20through%20the%20stratosphere.
This is not too difficult for you to figure out Swanson. Oxygen species absorb UV. That UV will hit the surface and warm it if its not absorbed in the upper atmosphere. O3 and O2 get so hot they split apart in molecules with lesser oxygen atoms, providing the raw materials for production of ozone at lower levels in the atmosphere.
And while using UCAR as a reference is unreliably an appeal to authority, I can back that one up with the industrial processes of producing ozone in a factory. You know a real experiment that shows the guesses to be correct!
https://www.oxidationtech.com/ozone/ozone-production.html#answer2
Gill imagines that nobody clicks on links:
“This is exactly the opposite of the behavior in the troposphere in which we live, where temperatures drop with increasing altitude. Because of this temperature stratification, there is little convection and mixing in the stratosphere, so the layers of air there are quite stable. Commercial jet aircraft fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid turbulence and increased atmospheric drag, which are common in the troposphere below. Air is roughly a thousand times thinner at the top of the stratosphere than it is at sea level.”
ROFL!
Willard maybe you should read the post I was responding to. The question was: ”Can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause?”
“You are jumping to a conclusion that reducing net radiation out results in a restriction of heat transfer. To show that you must show that convection is restricted because it operates to fill that void and only stop when the void is filled.”
Sure Bill, but you havent done any calculations, applied any real physics equations, nor done simulations.
But MW 1967 did all that, and found that the GHE strengthens with increasing CO2.
And your lack of any that means you have no basis to reject it.
M&W didn’t perform any experiment nate. so a link to an experiment that shows seim and olson to be wrong is the only possible evidence you can have that m&w relied upon rather than experimented.
but its just a lie what you are saying here as there is no such experiment.
“that shows seim and olson to be wrong is the only possible evidence you can have ”
Bill ignorantly pretends that the S$O experiment proved something about the Earth’s actual atmosphere, and no other experiments ever disagreed with it!
More than that Nate it destroys the Arrhenius theory and the only explanation ever given for CO2 warming anything. Once destroyed now they just wave their hand and claim warming occurs in the upper atmosphere without demonstrating any effect that could restrict convection.
Gill switches to saying stuff.
He’s just gonna wave this silly paper until the end of time.
Bill, let’s face it, you are a arm-chair quarterback, who sees a squirrel go by: science hasnt “demonstrating any effect that could restrict convection”.
Why should we take your concern seriously when you havent put the least bit of effort, and no physics, no math, no simulations, into this ‘thought bubble’?
“M&W didnt perform any experiment nate.”
Again, over the next 55 years people made plenty of observations and further simulations, that agree with the predictions of this paper, such as a warming troposphere and a more strongly cooling stratosphere.
This an excellent example of you rejecting evidence with no rationale to do so.
Nate comes up with totally vacuous responses. What did you just say? It makes no sense whatsoever to defend your position by attacking mine.
“What did you just say?”
Lost your ability to read?
Notice that Nate didn’t come up with any evidence whatsoever that suggests M&W is correct.
“Notice that” Bill has no integrity anymore and is lost completely to the dark side.
thats what all sycophants say about the guy that points out their Emperor is wearing no clothes.
nate clearly demonstrated that if any experiment demonstrated a restriction to convection nate is completely ignorant of its existence.
that means nate hasn’t told us what his real interest in this is as clearly its not science.
“demonstrated a restriction to convection”
You have done no atmospheric physics, no modeling, no simulations, no math.
Thus you havent shown that this ‘thought bubble’ is an actual problem, Bill.
Come back when you have done your homework.
perhaps you should follow your own advice. its pretty hard to convince anybody to join your religion when you can’t give a single rational reason as to why they should.
The usual baiting.
No thanks.
the usual breathless total lack of science on your part.
Gill has a fever, and the only prescription is –
More sammiches!
Well one has wonder what you Willard and Nate are doing in here promoting your daddy’s position when neither of you have a clue about the underlying science.
Well one has to wonder if Gill RTFR.
“by CO2 being drawn out of the oceans by a warming climate”
Nobody is denying that contributes also.
ken…”Boiling is the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas or vapor.
The conditions needed to attain boiling point can be accomplished with ice cubes”.
***
You are talking about vapourization, which is not really the same as boiling. When we talk about boiling water, we usually mean the effect caused at STP where the water reaches 100C. Naturally, you can try to boil water near the top of Everest and due to reduced pressure, it will ‘boil’ at 70C or so, and that is not what I associate with boiling water. Apparently coffee at that temperature is plain yucky.
What we mean scientifically when water boils at 70 C, when the air pressure is 1/3 the air pressure at sea level, is a change of state from liquid to vapour. It’s called a boil at that temperature for want of a better word. So, there should be a pressure low enough that it will allow ice to so-called boil water.
We can use the word boil in different ways. Usually it is a reference at STP to water boiling at 100C. But I have heard the word boiling referred to a sea agitated by something as boiling water. Is that really what we are talking about here, which is more a reference to bubbling water than to boiling water due to heat.
It’s silly to claim ice can boil water knowing full well it is more a bubbling action where the water is very cold. Would you try boiling potatoes in it? You could try but we know it won’t work. Therefore boiled potatoes require a temperature of 100C.
ps. a better word for what you mean is roiling. It means to agitate a liquid and that’s what happens when low pressure allows ice to roil the water.
Making up your own long winded phony definitions is one reason why you have no credibility.
Can’t dazzle them with brillance? Baffle them with BS. That ought to be your mantra.
1 atm, on Venus is quite cool.
But water will boil at the rocky surface of Venus, but boils at at significantly higher temperature as compared to 1 atm pressure.
Though at 1 atm on Venus, where the sun is near zenith, the sunlight is intense enough to boil water, whereas on Earth a solar pond water can reach 80 C due to sunlight. Whereas something bottled [water which is sealed] reaches about 60 C when sun is near zenith on Earth, and on Venus at 1 atm, bottled water could boil and explode your typical bottled water. Open water in Venus dry air at 1 atm, would evaporate rapidly and may not get very warm when sun at zenith- and most of Venus like Earth, doesn’t have the sun near zenith, and at night would certainly freeze.
Boiling is what happens when gas bubbles form in the water and move to the surface and leave the liquid and become gas.
Boiling occurs when the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the vapor pressure of the gas above the fluid.
Vaporization is when the liquid turns to gas at the surface.
Vaporization occurs when the vapor pressure of the liquid is below the pressure of the gas above the liquid.
Basic science lessons, someone owes me fifty.
Close, but no cigar. Vaporization occurs for any molecule when the vapor pressure of the liquid exceeds the dew point of the molecule in the gas. The same applies to liquid mixtures, but it requires data for the effective vapor pressure. Condensation occurs on any surface when the dew point exceeds the temperature of the surface.
To avoid confusion, I will restate that as follows:
Close, but no cigar. Vaporization occurs for any molecule when the vapor pressure of the liquid exceeds the dew point partial pressure of the molecule in the gas. The same applies to liquid mixtures, but it requires data for the effective vapor pressure. Condensation occurs on any surface when the dew point temperature exceeds the temperature of the surface.
Tim S,
Water evaporates at any temperature when it is in the liquid form.
Water only evaporates if it has somewhere to go. If the vapor space (air or any gas) above already has more water vapor (partial pressure) than the vapor pressure of the water at that condition of temperature and composition, if not pure water, then condensation will occur rather than evaporation. How do think a distillation column works?
Tim S
Both occur at the same time, you want to discuss a triple point flask.
Or talk about theoretical and actual plates in a distallation collumn?
Even when it is raining the water on the ground is still evaporating.
I see. Now you want to compare equilibrium rates, but the net effect is just as I explained. From my perspective, the faster rate becomes the net effect.
I suppose you still want your “fifty”, but it won’t come from me.
An excellent video interview with Tom Shula (Pirani gauge) in which he slays the GHE while pointing out the fallacy of radiation as a heat dissipator.
He claims the real greenhouse effect is related to energy being transmitted to Earth by the Sun at the speed of light and the relatively slow dissipation of that energy by the surface.
Shula has a degree in theoretical physics and works directly in a field related to radiation and conduction/convection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
I’m not watching a 45 minute video from yet another maverick scientist who claims to know better than atmospheric physicists.
“He claims the real greenhouse effect is related to energy being transmitted to Earth by the Sun at the speed of light and the relatively slow dissipation of that energy by the surface.”
The surface radiates at the speed of light, too. So the average temperature of the surface should be determined by the amount of sunlight it absorbs over its whole surface, accounting for its emissivity.
If that result equals the observed temperature of the Earth, then the atmosphere has no radiative effect on surface temperature.
Neither conduction nor convection matter for this point, because conduction is only a small part of the process, and rising parcels of air still radiate at the speed of light. So convection would only hasten heat loss, not slow it down – unless rising parcels of air cease to radiate…
I think the solar force of it’s photons, shouldn’t be ignored.
But wouldn’t go so far to say it’s everything. But say, 1% to 10% might be somewhere, in ballpark.
Nah, his claims were thoroughly discussed and debunked here.
troubleshooting…
barry…I did not claim the atmosphere cannot slow heat dissipation from the surface, I said that a trace gas can’t. I pointed out that the atmosphere can affect the rate of heat dissipation, but since it is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, it is those gases that affect the rate, not a trace gas. They do it through conduction/convection. You cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation via radiation.
I agree that the atmosphere does not have one single frequency but it has bazzillions of different elements radiating in the IR band at different frequencies. According to Bohr, each element radiates at several discrete frequencies and when you combine elements in an infinite number of combinations, those combos can radiate IR in a spectrum.
Still the rate of radiation is dependent on the transition time of the electrons in their orbits, in each element, and according to Bohr, that happens so fast it has no time element. It is an instantaneous process no matter how many orbital energy levels the electron makes. Therefore electrons emit EM at a rate so fast it cannot be quantified.
So, one instant you have heat as KE in one energy orbital and the next instant you have EM with the gained KE gone completely with a ground state jump. That’s an instantaneous conversion of thermal to electromagnetic energy with the gained thermal energy (from a previous excitation) disappearing altogether.
However, that process is on-going, therefore we should be able to measure the amount of time it takes for the surface to cool at a macro level, considering all electrons of each element in a mass. Still, there is no way to affect that rate via a trace gas in the atmosphere.
We can affect it via conduction/convection, since that rate can be cont.r.o…l.l.ed by the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere. We also know that process is 260 times more efficient at dissipating heat based on Shula’s work with the Pirani gauge.
Here…let Shula describe the process in this excellent interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
“You cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation via radiation.”
The emissivities of the atmosphere and the surface greatly overlap. Emissivity = absorp.tivity. That’s a fundamental physical relationship.
The energy is a photon is determined by its frequency, and this is not determined by the average temperature of the source, because the source emits in a broad range of frequencies.
The surface is constantly absorbing IR from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is constantly absorbing IR from the surface. The NET exchange determines heat flow.
If the average emissions of either changes, that will impact the other.
If the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR, it will send more IR back to the surface. That will be absorbed. This will change the exchange rate, and the surface will warm up to match.
Convection and latent heat play a part, but the Pirani gauge is not giving anywhere near the right readings for that, for a number of reasons.
The optical depth of the atmosphere matters when calculating relative heat transport. The gauge has an optical depth of, what, a few centimetres?
Conduction chiefly happens at the surface, a boundary phenomenon. Convection largely stops at the tropopause. Convection and conduction to not provide any heat loss to space – only radiation does that.
I only glanced a the video, and wondered what gas he put in the Pirani gauge. Was it N2? Did the filament match Earth temperatures?
Too many unknowns to know if it was a legit experiment.
barry,
You wrote –
“If the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR, it will send more IR back to the surface. That will be absorbed. This will change the exchange rate, and the surface will warm up to match.”
Don’t be daft. That’s just silly, saying that radiation emitted by the surface will warm the surface. Even putting a much better reflector than an atmosphere above the surface, won’t make it hotter!
You may deny that the surface cools at night – showing that all the emitted radiation flees into space. No warming. No GHE. Just more GHE cult fantasies.
Dreams are no substitute for reality.
Mike Flynn,
Still with your “slower cooling isn’t warmer” silly semantic game?
Keep playing dumb.
Cheers.
Swenson, I hate agreeing with Willard.
Ken,
Cooling is cooling. As in, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years,
The temperature has dropped. You can agree that it hasn’t, with as many dills like Willard as you like.
Slow cooling is still cooling.
No GHE.
The sun got hotter over those 4.5 billion year, so it must be clear to Swenson that the sun has no influence on global surface temperatures.
Swenson,
Are you daft and drooling in your Maypo again.
Never heard of a reflective oven?
I heard you could bake a pizza with one.
bob, a reflective oven is NOT the GHE nonsense.
Do you know why?
Yes Dear Clint, I do know that.
The point obviously missed your brain.
Are you slow today or what?
This BS from swengoolie was what I was referring to.
“Even putting a much better reflector than an atmosphere above the surface, wont make it hotter!”
Or did your brain miss that one too?
Correct bob, a reflector oven is NOT the GHE nonsense.
Glad to see you’re backing away from your comment.
Clint,
You can’t read, I never said it was the greenhouse effect.
I am not backing down from anything I have said today.
Here’s just one of bobdroege’s non-descriptive versions of the GHE –
“The Greenhouse Effect which when an atmosphere has radiatively active gases like CO2 and water vapor make the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without those gases.”
Unfortunately, blithe assertion is no substitute for fact. The surface of the airless Moon gets far hotter than the surface of the Earth.
bobdroege’s a dimwit, but at least he’s not smart enough to accept to accept reality.
The airless lunar surface also gets far, far colder than Earth’s.
Average lunar surface temp seems to be 201K.
https://phzoe.com/2021/02/15/average-moon-day-night-temperature/
87K cooler than Earth’s.
Carry on confusing every issue you blunder into Swenson. Kudos for consistency, I suppose.
Swenson,
The albedo of the Moon is also far higher than the Earth’s, therefore it would stand to reason that the Moon gets hotter than the Earth.
The Moon also rotates on its axis slower than the Earth, days are longer, nights are longer, so the temperature swings are greater.
And we should be considering averages, not peaks.
And you are still drooling in your Maypo.
DREMPTY,
It’s obvious that that depends on how the green plate became warmer than the blue plate.
barry is still defending the GHE. Despite the falsification of the “back-radiation warming” argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632578
Despite the semi debunking of the back radiation account, the GHE still causes warming of the surface.
Back radiation still exists, as radiation from the atmosphere reaches the surface and adds its energy to the surface.
bob, do you know why the energy from back-radiation does NOT increase Earth’s 288K surface temp?
A: … because the system is pretty much already in equilibrium. Add some more ppm wv, aerosols, surface albedo change, or other IR-active gases and the sun causes disequilibrium until the atm. temperature profile again equilibrates incoming absorbed SW and outgoing LW.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesn’t but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Man, are you slow today or what?
"Back radiation still exists"
As you already know, I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. It would be disgustingly dishonest of you to pretend I was suggesting that it doesn’t exist. Really repellently, grotesquely dishonest.
Maybe somebody could respond to the whole sentence.
If you claim it exists, then surely it is part of the greenhouse effect, but you probably would argue against that.
Or else claim it is heat transfer from cold to hot, when it is not that.
It is really sad watching a grown man pretend not to understand my argument. Pretend that we haven’t discussed it a dozen times before already.
Click on the link, bob, in case it’s just dementia and you need a reminder.
bob, I forgot that you believe ice cubes can boil water.
Kids these days….
DR EMPTY,
I am still just responding to your words
“barry is still defending the GHE. Despite the falsification of the back-radiation warming argument:”
Obviously that sentence means you think the falsification of the backradiation warming argument actually falsifies the greenhouse effect.
If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect.
As I understand it, it is a wrong argument.
I win again, you lose.
Go jam with Coldplay.
If you can explain the GHE without “back-radiation warming”, be my guest. So far, you’ve asserted:
“Yes Clint, not alone it doesn’t but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.”
In response to:
“bob, do you know why the energy from back-radiation does NOT increase Earth’s 288K surface temp?“
from Clint R. So you’re not doing very well so far.
DR EMPTY,
Yes, I did click on the link, and the next one and found this gem.
“You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP. It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT.”
The fact that the GP cools has nothing to do with anything about the blue plate.
Heat transfer is always from the blue plate to the green plate, even as the separation of the two plates causes an increase in temperature of the blue plate to satisfy the heat transfer equations.
Sorry charlie, take a course in thermodynamics.
DR EMPTY,
You fail to point out anything wrong with this statement.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesnt but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Epic Fail.
Keep reading, bob. You’re not giving the full account of my argument. A little further down, in the lengthy discussion at the first link (not the second link), you will find:
Here’s a 2LoT violation:
You separate the plates. It doesn’t matter for what reason you think the GP cools. That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.
Thus, you must believe the GP is cooling to the BP, since you believe cooling is now occurring, and the only difference from when the GP wasn’t cooling is that now the GP is radiating to the BP.
If the GP is cooling to the BP, then it’s sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, that’s you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.
A bit more subtle than the GP being warmer than the BP.
"You fail to point out anything wrong with this statement.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesnt but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Epic Fail."
bob, you’ve lost the thread of the conversation already. You said:
"Obviously that sentence means you think the falsification of the backradiation warming argument actually falsifies the greenhouse effect.
If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect."
So I challenged you to describe the GHE without relying on "back-radiation warming", and pointed out that you had already relied on it in the discussion thus far.
bob…can you actually describe the GHE without relying on "back-radiation warming"? If not, then it would seem you’re wrong, again.
DR EMPTY,
Try again,
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then its sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, thats you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
First, as I already said, the GP is not cooling to the BP, it is just cooling by emitting radiation.
The BP does warm upon separation, that’s what solving the heat transfer equations show.
So, no, I am not treating a single flow of IR radiation as heat, because as has been pointed out by many on both sides of this argument, radiation is not heat. Radiation can transfer heat and or energy, but it is not heat.
Anyway, no matter what you assert, the heat transfer is always from the BP to the GP.
Again, you would be more likely to understand my arguments if you had taken a course in thermodynamics.
"Again, you would be more likely to understand my arguments if you had taken a course in thermodynamics."
There’s nothing remotely complicated about the Green Plate Effect, and your arguments are perfectly simple and straightforward enough for anyone to understand, bob. Nice try, though.
"First, as I already said, the GP is not cooling to the BP, it is just cooling by emitting radiation."
It has to be cooling to somewhere, bob. Can’t just be cooling.
"The BP does warm upon separation, that’s what solving the heat transfer equations show."
Solve away, bob. Be my guest.
"So, no, I am not treating a single flow of IR radiation as heat, because as has been pointed out by many on both sides of this argument, radiation is not heat. Radiation can transfer heat and or energy, but it is not heat."
Absolutely. Radiation is not heat. However, in the 262 K…220 K solution, you treat the "back-radiation" transfer as though it were a transfer of heat.
"Anyway, no matter what you assert, the heat transfer is always from the BP to the GP."
Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!
Very funny.
Just to clarify the last paragraph, as I know what bob’s like:
Two ways in which GPE proponents can accept a 2LoT violation in the GPE:
1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.
If you have any more ways, bob, just let me know.
DR EMPTY
“It has to be cooling to somewhere, bob. Cant just be cooling”
Says who?
Yes it can just be cooling, the radiation emitted could travel forever, never hitting a physical object.
“Solve away, bob. Be my guest.”
Been there done that, got a degree.
Check the Rabbetts page on the subject, but you need to do that for yourself, it’s the only way to be sure.
“Absolutely. Radiation is not heat. However, in the 262 K220 K solution, you treat the “back-radiation” transfer as though it were a transfer of heat.”
No we are not, we are treating the back radiation as a transfer of energy. The heat transfer is from the BP to the GP.
Check your guy who you claimed debunked the back radiation version of the greenhouse effect for an explanation of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation or look to the Rabbett.
“Yes it can just be cooling, the radiation emitted could travel forever, never hitting a physical object.”
Sure, bob, the radiation emitted to space could indeed do so. However, the GP was emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation. So, that emission to space is not the difference that’s responsible for the GP cooling. The difference is the radiation from the BP to the GP.
"Check the Rabbetts page on the subject, but you need to do that for yourself, it’s the only way to be sure."
Already have. Nothing there I didn’t understand. Thanks anyway.
"Check your guy who you claimed debunked the back radiation version of the greenhouse effect for an explanation of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation or look to the Rabbett."
More handwaving.
"No we are not, we are treating the back radiation as a transfer of energy. The heat transfer is from the BP to the GP."
No response to the last paragraph of my 3:30 PM comment?
"The difference is the radiation from the BP to the GP."
Sorry, I meant the difference is the radiation from the GP to the BP.
DR EMPTY,
Alright I’ll address your last comment:
“Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!”
Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.
And now this
“Already have. Nothing there I didnt understand. Thanks anyway.”
Obviously you don’t understand it, or you wouldn’t be claiming its wrong because it violates the second law, which you don’t seem to have a firm grasp of anyway.
And here is a description of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation.
CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in specific wavelengths, the intensity of that is based solely on concentration and temperature, some of that radiation hits the surface depositing its energy to the surface, which combined with other radiations hitting the surface causes the temperature to increase on the surface, if the concentration or temperature of the CO2 is raised.
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
You won’t understand why, but you are actually helping make my point for me, so thanks.
“CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in specific wavelengths, the intensity of that is based solely on concentration and temperature, some of that radiation hits the surface depositing its energy to the surface, which combined with other radiations hitting the surface causes the temperature to increase on the surface, if the concentration or temperature of the CO2 is raised.“
Yeah, that still involves “back-radiation warming”, bob, you are just avoiding the term “back-radiation” itself. Silly bob.
DR EMPTY,
No it does not involve back radiation.
You should know that almost all of the CO2 radiation comes from the molecules of CO2 getting excited from collisions with N2 and O2 molecules rather than absorbing IR radiation from the Earth’s surface.
You know thermalization and its converse.
Well, bob, once you’ve worked out whether or not the GHE involves "back-radiation warming", and thus whether or not you needed to have wasted your time defending "back-radiation warming" for years, as you have done, and as though your life depended on it…just let me know.
DR EMPTY,
I have not defended back radiation for years, actually a long time ago I said it was a bad description of what is going, on you must have missed that, and it’s too long ago for me to bother searching for it just to counter your straw.
I have defended down welling infrared, but that’s a different animal.
All the radiation from CO2 is not back-radiation, as the energy the CO2 emits as infrared is predominantly sourced from N2 and O2, not upwelling IR from the surface.
Taking that statement into account, you still don’t need any back-radiation in the description of the greenhouse effect.
But then you have put up straw for years.
“Back-radiation warming” is exemplified by the Green Plate Effect. You have defended the GPE as though your life depended on it, for coming up to seven years now. It’s OK, nobody expects you to be honest.
DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
“If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect.”
You said it was in your response to Barry
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then its sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, thats you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
No, I am not treating it as a single flow of IR radiation, there are two objects, so two transfers of energy, and the difference in those two transfers is the transfer of heat.
You don’t understand thermodynamics, so take a course and stop lying about what I think.
DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.
It’s just SB law and some calculations.
Which you try your best no to understand.
Describe what you believe would be a 2LoT violation, wrt the Green Plate Effect. Plate temperatures and associated fluxes, please.
“There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.“
Hilarious, bob. It’s the radiation from the GP to the BP. That is regarded as “back-radiation”. If you can’t accept that, no point us interacting.
* Bob resenting DREMT pinning a view on him that he doesn’t hold
* Bob explaining heat flow is warmer BP to cooler GP
* Bob explaining NET flow of radiation determines heat flow
* Bob pointing out a single vector of radiation isn’t a heat flow
* Bob treating rad from GP to BP as transfer of energy, not heat
* Bob saying GP doesn’t cool to BP
* Bob emphasising exchange between BP and GP, not just one vector
I can’t believe you, DREMT! This is our dance, you hussy!
barry, bob contradicts you, here:
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
You might want to straighten that out with him.
And, if you have no more descriptions of GPE-related 2LoT violations to add to this list:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
then you really should concede the debate, as your way of looking at things is obviously wrong.
> This is our dance, you hussy!
This is Graham D. Warner’s dance with everyone!
Little Willy senses a cyber-bullying opportunity, so appears out of nowhere. I knew there was absolutely no chance he could stay out of my comments for long. Nate will wait until the discussion has gone on for a few days before chiming in with something adorable and ignorable. Oh well. Trolls will be trolls.
A warmer GP sending more energy to colder BP than it receives is, like Bob says, not a violation of 2LoT between the plates.
What contradiction are you talking about?
If you want to include the sun in this picture, warming the BP, then you have a 1st Law violation. Energy in the GP is created from nothing.
DR EMPTY,
“Hilarious, bob. Its the radiation from the GP to the BP. That is regarded as back-radiation. If you cant accept that, no point us interacting.”
I consider back-radiation to mean radiation coming back from a source, a reflection if you will, and in the BP scenario, there is no reflection.
I consider it SB radiation, or black-body radiation. The sums of which determine the temperatures.
Now for a second law violation, let’s consider your diagram with the extra arrow, and the blue and green plates at the same temperature, since in that diagram, the blue and green plates receive different amounts of radiation, yet are at the same temperature, that is a second law violation considering the entropy statements of the second law. Two things at the same temperature but receiving different amounts of radiation, means they should have different entropies.
Again, try a course in thermodynamics, because you are still wrong, just like Franco is still dead.
The one I quoted, barry. Your idea of a 2LoT violation was a cooler GP somehow emitting more than the warmer BP, in violation of the SB Law. About that, bob said:
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
So, you two disagree.
And, if you want to take number 1) off the list of GPE-related 2LoT violations, be my guest. It only weakens your position further. You guys don’t seem to realise you are shooting yourselves in the foot. Keep on blasting away, barry.
bob, since you are unable to:
1) accept that the “back-radiation” in the GPE is the radiation from GP to BP.
2) correctly represent the diagram.
3) add what you consider to be a 2LoT violation to the list (sensible suggestions only, see 2) for why I’m not taking your suggestion seriously)
Then I suggest we stop interacting.
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation”
I just said I agree with that statement, DREMT.
Where do you think I’ve disagreed with it? Quote me.
“Your idea of a 2LoT violation was a cooler GP somehow emitting more than the warmer BP, in violation of the SB Law.”
Bob said no violation if GP is warmer than BP, and he is right.
No contradiction, here, DREMT.
I said to bob:
“Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!”
Because that perhaps wasn’t clear enough, I then clarified:
“Two ways in which GPE proponents can accept a 2LoT violation in the GPE:
1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K. 2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
bob responded:
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation [this is a response to 1)]
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation [this is a response to 2), your argument, barry]”
So bob is disagreeing with you on your 2). OK?
It appears we are interpreting bob’s answer to 2) differently.
I’m interpreting that he’s saying if GP is emitting more to BP, then that means GP is warmer than BP, and this scenario does not violate 2LoT.
How are you interpreting it?
Yes, barry. I interpret it that way, too. In other words, he is ignoring the entire part about violating the SB Law. He is not getting what you meant, even after I clarified it for him. You should be discussing this with him. Somehow I get lumbered with cleaning up everybody’s mess!
And, by the way, I was being generous in giving you 1), in the first place. You and bob can both reject it if you like, and then your total list of ways you can conceive of heat flowing from cold to hot in the GPE will consist of only one possibility – your 2)! In other words, the only way you can conceive of there being a 2LoT violation in the GPE is if the SB Law is also violated. Keep on blasting that foot.
“Yes, barry. I interpret it that way, too. In other words, he is ignoring the entire part about violating the SB Law. He is not getting what you meant, even after I clarified it for him. You should be discussing this with him. Somehow I get lumbered with cleaning up everybodys mess!”
The only confusion is this manufactured ‘contradiction.’ bob and I do not disagree, we’re responding to your questions in different ways.
bob’s answer doesn’t violate S/B so of course he ignored it.
Mine does, and your apparent requirement that it should not is completely arbitrary.
Think about it DREMT, you’re asking for a description of a violation of a law of physics that violates no other laws of physics.
Rather than consider one would inevitably lead to the other (which is one way that these laws were worked out in the first place), you impose arbitrary limits.
barry…2) was your argument. Clearly, bob did not understand what you meant. Here I am, sorting it all out for you. You’re welcome!
“barry… 2) was your argument. Clearly, bob did not understand what you meant.”
Then how could he contradict me?
If you have managed to unconfuse yourself, congratulations. No need to pat yourself on the back, I’ll do it for you.
bobdroege says:
”DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.
Its just SB law and some calculations.
Which you try your best no to understand.”
Yep it works like this: If you trap the heat in the GP the GP warms up to the same temperature as the BP. But if you only trap half the heat going into the GP and let the other half escape to space, it causes the BP to warm instead. Sheeesh!
> If you trap the heat
Gill forgot to tell how Sky Dragon cranks are supposed to do that.
LMAO!
Via birth defect Willard.
Gill still does not get that ze question is –
Why does he still deny that, as an American Petroleum Institute report noted in 1968, no possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory?
I was not confused barry, bob was. By your example of a 2LoT violation in the GPE…because it was so absurd that nobody would assume you meant the GP would emit other than as the SB Law dictates, and likewise for the BP. Which is why he contradicted you in the first place, saying it was not a 2LoT violation.
DR EMPTY,
“1) accept that the back-radiation in the GPE is the radiation from GP to BP.”
What is it “back” from?
“2) correctly represent the diagram.”
What did I get wrong?
Maybe you can post the crap diagram again.
“3) add what you consider to be a 2LoT violation to the list (sensible suggestions only, see 2) for why Im not taking your suggestion seriously)”
Since the Green Plate Effect can be observed by anyone with an electric stove, a pot, a couple plates, and an instrument to measure temperature.
Thus, as an observation, it can’t have a violation of the second law.
“Then I suggest we stop interacting.”
Say you are sorry for being so wrong so often, leave the site, and stop responding.
No need for crocodile tears for hauling the straw, not lumber.
"What is it “back” from?"
I didn’t invent the term "back-radiation", bob. I’m simply instructing you that the "back-radiation" in the GPE is the radiation from the GP to the BP.
"What did I get wrong?"
Everything.
"Since the Green Plate Effect can be observed by anyone with an electric stove, a pot, a couple plates, and an instrument to measure temperature. Thus, as an observation, it can’t have a violation of the second law."
bob, you know full well what I’m asking you. Don’t play dumb.
"Say you are sorry for being so wrong so often, leave the site, and stop responding. No need for crocodile tears for hauling the straw, not lumber."
Yawn.
DR EMPTY,
Yes I know what you are asking, but I can’t conjure up a second law violation where there is none.
Neither in the Green Plate Effect nor in the Greenhouse Effect is there a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
bob continues to play dumb.
I guess because he’s realised he cannot add to this list:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
And, that shows how ridiculous their way of looking at it is.
DR EMPTY,
Like I said, you can’t conjure up a second law violation in the green plate effect because there is not one.
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
No 1, unfortunately the GP is not warmer than the BP.
No 2, unfortunately the GP is cooler that the BP, but does not emit more than the BP.
So neither one of those are violations of the second law.
“If you have any more ways, bob, just let me know.”
Well, it’s like I said, there are none, so I don’t have any sammiches.
Now I think maybe you are not playing.
DR EMPTY,
So give me a second law violation in the green plate effect.
I will continue to show you why it is not a violation of the second law.
bob…I’m asking you for an example of what you think is a 2LoT violation, in terms of radiative heat transfer. So, taking the framework of the Green Plate Effect, but changing the temperature values for the plates, what do you think would be a 2LoT violation? Do you get what I’ve been asking you yet? Or are you still just a confused old man?
DR EMPTY,
Asked and answered!
I can’t conjure one up, because one does not exist.
“Which is why he contradicted you…”
No he didn’t. He said what a violation isn’t, I said what a violation is. Keeping NET energy flow the same vector his GP is warmer, mine cooler. Our answers are mutually self-consistent.
barry: bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was. That’s a contradiction. He hasn’t yet changed his opinion on 2) even after it’s been re-explained what you meant. If you listen to what he’s saying now, it doesn’t look like bob believes it’s even possible to violate 2LoT, radiatively. He’s certainly extremely reluctant to give me an example wrt the GPE. It’s quite funny watching you two avoiding interacting, letting me do all the work, as usual.
“Think about it DREMT, youre asking for a description of a violation of a law of physics that violates no other laws of physics.”
Good point, Barry.
If, as in the original Eli Rabbet presentation of the GPE, the basic laws of physics are applied to solve a problem, then its solution obeyed the laws of physics.
The solution has steady heat flows from hot to warm to cooler to cold.
Such a solution cannot be violating the 2LOT!
It is extremely unlikely that ‘getting to’ this final state would be impossible without violating 2LOT.
And there are several ways in which the final configuration of plates can be achieved.
For example, the two plates could have initially been side by side, both in the sunshine, and both at 244 K, both emitting 200 W/m^2 on both sides.
Then the GP could have been moved into the shade behind the BP.
It should be plainly obvious and common sensical that the GP, no longer exposed to 400 W/m^2 from the direct sunlight, but instead by 200 W/m^2 from the BP, must COOL to a lower temperature.
And then it should be plainly obvious and common sensical that since, on its backside, the BP is no longer exposed to the extreme cold of space, but is instead now exposed to the equal temperature GP, and no longer able to lose heat on that side, that it should WARM to a higher temperature.
And of course ordinary physics, the Radiative Heat Transfer law, and 1LOT, confirms this common sense reasoning.
DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect.
It’s a law of nature and nothing can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect.
It’s a law of nature and nothing can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So there.
As I predicted it, so he appears.
Looks like DR EMPTY is giving up because he can’t find a second law violation with respect to the Green Plate Effect.
"DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect."
Wrong, bob. Man, are you behind on the discussion, if what you’ve said is supposed to be taken seriously. Assuming it is…what I’m asking is for you to give an example of a hypothetical 2LoT violation in terms of radiative heat transfer. Using the familiar GPE scenario as the framework for it. Obviously 2LoT violations don’t happen in real life. That’s why I’m asking for a hypothetical example. And no, I’m not going to turn around and say, "there you go, you said the GPE violates 2LoT!"
I’m not quite as childish as you, bob.
Just give the plate temperatures and fluxes for a hypothetical 2LoT violation, as you see it. The reason I’m asking is because I don’t even think you realise how ridiculous your own position is. You need to start thinking it through.
"Looks like DR EMPTY is giving up because he can’t find a second law violation with respect to the Green Plate Effect."
No, bob, that argument’s done. I’ve found the 2LoT violation in the GPE. In fact, that was found years ago, immediately after the GPE was even created. The explanations have just got clearer in recent months.
No, this argument is more about exposing how silly your way of looking at it is.
Seems like you can’t even agree on what a radiative 2LoT violation would look like! You’ve certainly been unable to describe one within the GPE framework, so far. Only barry has attempted one, and that also violates the SB Law. You haven’t even said yet if you agree with him that it’s a 2LoT violation. It’s been like getting blood out of a stone with you, so far.
DR EMPTY
“Ive found the 2LoT violation in the GPE. In fact, that was found years ago, immediately after the GPE was even created.”
No you haven’t!
Tell me again, pull the other finger.
However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.
But then the green plate would have to emit more than is allowed by the SB equation.
Only losers result to name calling.
Then I guess you’re a loser for calling me "DR EMPTY". And a loser for calling me a "loser"…
"However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.
But then the green plate would have to emit more than is allowed by the SB equation."
bob’s starting to get a sense for how ridiculous his position is…
“bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was.”
Fabrication.
bob said GP must be warmer than BP to send more energy to BP, and that this doesn’t violate 2LoT. I agree.
I said a violation would be if GP was colder than BP and sending more energy to BP.
We are not contradicting each other at all. Our statements are different answers that are mutually consistent; parallel, not contrary.
Because you have so often left the sun out of the equation, I imagine bob has done the same, as have I. Although my answer works fine as a 2LoT violation with the sun included in the scenario.
DREMT tried his hardest but failed to find a convincing 2LOT violation in the original GPE solution.
Everything else he is throwing out here is distraction from that failure.
[DREMT] bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was.
[BARRY] Fabrication.
[BOB] If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.
[BARRY] So the cold objects radiates more to the warm than the other way around. 2LoT violated.
Besides, shouldn’t you be arguing with bob about 1), as well…since you now think that it is a 2LoT violation, after arguing that it wasn’t? Or must I get all the grief about that as well? Will you in fact ever direct a response to bob, instead of me?
“Because you have so often left the sun out of the equation, I imagine bob has done the same, as have I.”
A false accusation, an attempt to blame me for your own mistake, and an attempt to cover for bob’s mistake all at the same time! Amazing work.
Will bob now agree that both 1) and 2) from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
are 2LoT violations, completely reversing his previous stance? Will bob and barry ever discuss their disagreement? Or will I get all the grief and abuse from all sides? Will anyone be able to add to the list or is that really the extent of their concepts of radiative 2LoT violations?
Stay tuned to find out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1643686
Thanks for the quotes. Bob has the GP warmer, I have it cooler. energy going same way. His take is no violation, which I agree with, mine is a violation, which he doesn’t consider. No contradiction.
You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.
With the sun in the picture, I can see how a warmer GP would be a 2nd Law violation, but I think it is more naturally a 1st Law violation, because GP has gotten energy from nowhere.
“Thanks for the quotes. Bob has the GP warmer, I have it cooler. energy going same way. His take is no violation, which I agree with, mine is a violation, which he doesn’t consider. No contradiction.”
…apart from the fact that you don’t now agree that having the GP warmer than the BP is not a 2LoT violation. You think it is a 2LoT violation. And a 1LoT violation.
…and, also, apart from the fact he still was referring to your 2) as not being a 2LoT violation, when you said it was. Regardless of the fact that he changed the conditions of your 2) in order to do so.
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.”
I don’t need to clear up anything, because I said to use the same scenario as the GPE, and the GPE includes the Sun. This is just your excuse to pretend bob, and you, have not made a mistake.
” Obviously 2LoT violations dont happen in real life.”
OK then!
So really there is no point in discussing it or trying to manufacture a scenario where it happens, or to keep bringing it up, as DREMT keeps doing.
Since really even he realizes it is a great big red herring.
But why stop when you have such a beautiful method for endless obfuscation?
Trolls will be trolls.
DR EMPTY,
“”However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.”
Since there isn’t any heat transfer from the greem plate to the blue plate, there isn’t a second law violation.
DR EMPTY,
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.”
Bad assumption, the 400 W/m^2 input is from the Sun, as in the original problem.
DR EMPTY
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
Since neither of these occur
No second law violation.s
Try finding a second law violation with things that actually occur.
bob writes three comments, all addressed to me. However, in the first comment he is quoting and responding to himself, in the second comment he is quoting and responding to barry, and only in the third comment is he quoting and responding to me.
Both the first and third comments reveal that he is still not able to follow the discussion. The 2LoT violation in the GPE was found years ago. That’s not in question. It was re-discussed at the link that starts this sub-thread (March 7, 2024 at 9:00 AM), if bob wants to finally take the time to read through the entire thing. If not, he can remain ignorant. Fine with me.
This discussion is not about that. It’s about hypothetical 2LoT violations using the framework of the GPE, and how GPE proponents obviously haven’t thought through their own position. As bob and barry are nicely demonstrating, they’re not even really sure what constitutes a radiative 2LoT violation!
“The 2LoT violation in the GPE was found years ago. Thats not in question.”
Total BS.
“It was re-discussed at the link that starts this sub-thread (March 7, 2024 at 9:00 AM)”
In which DREMTs illogic was thoroughly demolished.
He has utterly failed to produce a 2LOT violation in the GPE.
“This discussion is not about that.”
Its about trying to distract from that failure to find a 2LOT violation in the GPE.
And clearly Bob is not falling for it.
Nate has real difficulty in keeping out of my discussions.
“Regardless of the fact that he changed the conditions of your 2) in order to do so….”
No, it makes all the difference.
I’ll make my position clear.
* Heat flow is determined by a temperature difference
* In radiative terms it is the NET exchange of energy
* I was asked to describe a 2LoT violation in radiative terms
* I kept the temperature difference, reversed the NET exchange
Seems logical to me.
But DREMT seems to worry that this also breaks S/B law.
It’s like being asked to describe a river flow that would be prohibited under the Laws of Gravity, and then getting complaints that this also breaks the 1st Law of Motion, the Law of Entropy and Conservation of Energy at the same time.
These laws aren’t commandments, they are descriptions of how things work. Any imaginary scenario violating these laws is likely to violate other physical laws. It might even be inevitable.
This requirement that a *good* description of a 2LoT violation should break no other laws is ill-considered and arbitrary.
barry, you have responded to me again, for some reason.
Here is what you said, about (but not to) bob:
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it”
Here is what bob said, about (but not to) you:
“Bad assumption, the 400 W/m^2 input is from the Sun, as in the original problem.”
What do you have to say to bob, in response? You disagree with each other about 1). Go.
“These laws arent commandments, they are descriptions of how things work. Any imaginary scenario violating these laws is likely to violate other physical laws. It might even be inevitable.”
Absolutely. And conversely, that the GPE solution satisfies all other laws of physics means that it satisfies 2LOT also.
This is transparently about DREMT, as usual, trying to manufacture a ‘fight’ between his opponents, as a distraction from his failure in the GPE argument.
With the debunking of the GPE re-explained on the other thread for at least the twentieth time, it’s fun to watch barry and bob avoid discussing their disagreement on what they think constitutes a radiative 2LoT violation. bob has said that the following is not a 2LoT violation:
"1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K."
barry is now saying that he thinks it is a 2LoT violation. I think most people would agree that if two people hold diametrically opposing views, that constitutes a disagreement. Will they discuss their disagreement? Probably not. That’s part of their "team tactics", after all.
Great to see that the GPE proponents have never really thought their position through.
“This is transparently about DREMT, as usual, trying to manufacture a ‘fight’ between his opponents, as a distraction from his failure in the GPE argument.”
Good point. GPE is NOT debunked since DREMT’s solution is ruled out by 2LOT because it fails to increase universe entropy as required for all real processes:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Another unwelcome intrusion into the discussion. The debunking of the 262 K…220 K solution does not involve the alternative 244 K…244 K solution at all. So, Ball4 is wrong again.
No intrusion, this thread devolves from my earlier answer to Clint R. DREMT now rightfully abandons his calculated solution but for word salad?
Word salad can never debunk Eli’s GPE solution using 1LOT and consistent with 2LOT showing universe entropy increased.
No, this sub-thread has nothing to do with your earlier intrusion. I’ve abandoned nothing, and no, there’s no word salad. You are dismissed.
DREMT previously wrote: “The debunking … does not involve the alternative 244 K … 244 K solution at all.” Good, so despite claims to the contrary, DREMT has abandoned his earlier failed debunking to now resort to word salad discussing an imaginary concept “heat” which can mean anything the writer can imagine after James Prescott Joule’s experiments proved “heat” does not physically exist in an object.
For the correct GPE solution, better to use experimentally confirmed 1LOT consistent with 2LOT like Eli correctly showed years ago.
Vintage 2017:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268429
I wonder who that GW could have been.
Little Willy and Ball4, please stop trolling.
“With the debunking of the GPE re-explained on the other thread for at least the twentieth time”
Clearly not what is happening over there.
Currently DREMT is having a hissy fit because Barry is refusing to bend-the-knee to DREMTs twisted, ill-logical way of thinking.
They tend to get a little upset every time their religion is falsified.
Anyway, we await the argument between barry and bob.
DREMT means the imaginary “heat” comments. Only proper experiments count for winning science arguments. Eli’s solution is based on experimentally confirmed 1LOT and 2LOT. DREMT has never had anything but imagination in comments.
See what I mean? More than a little upset.
We await the argument between barry and bob.
Upset that DREMT continues to post physically incorrect comments for years. I haven’t noticed bob and barry disagreeing with Eli’s GPE solution so there really is no argument on that except with DREMT’s faulty imagination.
Ball4 reveals he has not followed the discussion on this sub-thread, and clearly has just been triggered by the mention of the GPE being debunked. Perhaps he should read through the comments in this sub-thread before commenting.
I did read this thread comments; some are humorous imaginary entertainment. I noted no response to my comment. DREMT is just imagining science with word salad. DREMT doesn’t understand how to correctly use the 1LOT and 2LOT as did Eli a few years ago or DREMT would do so.
If you had read the comments, you would be aware that bob and barry disagree, and would be quietly awaiting their argument. Instead, you are simply trolling. Please stop.
Another sperglords handbag fight.
Things are how they should be.
bob and barry…when you’re ready…begin your debate.
No science debate necessary between those two DREMT, they both agree with Eli’s 1LOT work which increases universe entropy.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
“bob and barrywhen youre readybegin your debate.”
Boy, are you confused DREMPTY.
I made one statement Barry made another in ways there could be a second law violation.
I said if the Green Plate was transferring heat to the Blue plate, but that could only happen if the Green Plate was hotter than the blue plate, and if it was, it would not be a violation.
Barry said if the Green plate was emitting more radiation than the Blue plate, but that would be a SB law violation as well.
Nothing contradictory there as we are changing two different things.
Again as we told you your debunking is wrong and your 244 244 solution is wrong.
That’s just where the system starts when the plates are separated.
Upon separation there is no heat transfer from BP to GP because they are at the same temperature and the heat transfer equation give 0 as the heat transfer, same temperature.
Then the GP cools as it is not getting as much radiation as it recieves.
And the BP warms because it is now getting radiation from the GP, not heat.
Never any heat transfer from the GP to the BP.
It’s been explained too many times.
We can make this discussion about anything we want to, DREMPTY, your are not the moderator.
Poor bob is confused again, so I will make it really simple for him.
You said it would not be a 2LoT violation if:
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.”
barry is now saying it would be.
So, you disagree.
Summary of the sad saga:
Under the influence of an ignorant-tro.ll, Joe Postma, several years ago, DREMT adopted the insane position that an object in the sun should warm to the same temperature as an identical object in the shade.
And ever since he has adopted multitudinous different nutty non-physical scenarios to defend this indefensible position.
The latest being a total logical failure. One that as Barry points out is best described as
” your process of elimination to eliminate everything but what I want to see.”
As applied:
“With the heater on, the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same.
Turn off the heat, and now the room cools.
By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.
The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasnt changed. So we eliminate that possibility.
The cooling room is not cooling to the environment.
It must be cooling to the heater.”
To be fair, DREMT was talking about the GPE, but it was the same process of elimination ill-logic:
“The GP is not cooling to space on separation (from the BP), because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space, before separation. The difference is that its now emitting to the BP, and thus, thats where it must be cooling to, since you propose it cools on separation.”
A long post from Nate is usually a misrepresentation. A short post is usually an insult. That’s my experience from back when I used to read or respond to his comments.
Anyway…bob? barry? Your disagreement?
In his ‘process of elimination’ he has eliminated the emission from the BP to the GP, which is still present and as large as the emission from the GP to BP, and THUS the heat input to the GP is now ZERO.
With zero heat flow input and still heat flow to space, the GP must COOL.
Simple logic.
Anyway…bob? barry? Your disagreement?
And important to note:
With zero heat flow input and still heat flow output to space, the GP must COOL….to space.
Just as the room, with zero heat input, cooled to its cold environment.
The process of elimination illogic failed for both cases.
bob obviously realises his mistake. Whoops! I guess he hopes going silent will help.
The GP: “With zero heat flow input and still heat flow output to space”
And DREMT has now agreed with these two conditions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1646331
Then we all can agree:
“the GP must COOL.to space”
But NO, not DREMT.
Because he is leaking brain fluid, or something.
From the recent flurry of posts it appears Nate may be having another meltdown. I bet he’s just going on about what’s happening in the other thread, where barry’s “heater switch off” analogy was exposed as a misrepresentation that failed to achieve what he intended. Meanwhile, on this thread, barry and bob have demonstrated their confusion about radiative 2LoT violations. No wonder none of them are capable of understanding how the GPE violates 2LoT!
Based on his desperation to try to distract, DREMT appears to know that there is no logical option other than to agree:
The GP must COOL…to space, not the BP.
No wonder none of them are capable of understanding how the GPE violates 2LoT!
… no wonder because their capability is higher than DREMT’s since they know Eli’s solution to GPE years ago increases universe entropy thus conforms to 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Obviously their capability is not higher, Ball4, since they’ve demonstrated on this permanent internet record that they cannot correctly identify a radiative 2LoT violation. bob said of the following:
"1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K"
That it wasn’t a 2LoT violation! barry first said it was, then changed his mind to say it wasn’t, then finally now is saying that it is again.
Ball4 contributes nothing, because he’s a…well, we all know what he is.
Doesn’t matter DREMT 1:36 pm, their word salad is irrelevant since both bob and barry agree with Eli’s years ago 1LOT GPE solution because they are more capable than DREMT to understand that GPE solution is consistent with 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
"their word salad is irrelevant…"
It’s not "word salad", Ball4, it’s just saying whether or not a specific scenario violates 2LoT. The scenario we are discussing has the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 from the Sun, and the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K. The exact reverse of Eli’s proposed 262 K…220 K solution. Surely you can just weigh in on if you think that’s a 2LoT violation or not? Perhaps you can waffle on about entropy, which you regularly do since you know that no layman will understand what you’re talking about, so you can pull the wool over people’s eyes quite easily…
… then remove the wool & find both bob and barry agree with Eli’s years ago 1LOT GPE solution because they are more capable than DREMT to understand that GPE solution is consistent with 2LOT as stated.
DREMT (and anyone else) is welcome & even expected to accomplish formal education in thermodynamics to better understand entropy which is taught in a first course of study in the field; it’s not even complicated but the pre-req.s must be in hand.
Can’t or won’t give an answer, Ball4?
Sure, you’re very repetitive, and offensively condescending in an attempt to deliberately irritate, but can’t you just answer a simple question rather than being an obnoxious, hated, argument-losing failure? Make a positive contribution for the first time in your worthless existence…
The answer is already known, DREMT.
… the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K is not an equilibrium state solution. From those system temperatures, as Eli shows, GP cools in the shade and BP warms in the sun both processes in accord with 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
"…the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K is not an equilibrium state solution."
Obviously not, Ball4, but the question is, would it have to violate 2LoT in order for it to be an "equilibrium state solution"? Ball4’s next dodge of the question in three, two, one…
"…GP cools in the shade and BP warms in the sun…"
Not a lot of meaningful "shade" from an ultra-thin, perfectly-conducting blackbody plate, Ball4.
The BP is opaque, DREMT. As such, BP provides shade from the sun for the GP. There will be no 2LOT violation as the BP,GP system temperatures change to long term equilibrium as calculated by Eli years ago from any BP,GP initial temperature setting.
"The BP is opaque, DREMT. As such, BP provides shade from the sun for the GP."
Sure, but from the point of view of its effect on the GP temperature, it may as well be transparent. Besides, push the GP up against the BP. Your "shade" argument goes "poof".
"There will be no 2LOT violation as the BP, GP system temperatures change…"
That’s the closest Ball4 will get to admitting that bob was wrong – the situation with the BP at 220 K and the GP at 262 K does violate 2LoT. Thanks, Ball4. You’re dismissed.
“it may as well be transparent.”
But it’s not. Push them together, GP is still in the shade of the BP. No poof.
DREMT left out an important word: the situation with the BP at 220 K and the GP at 262 K does NOT violate 2LoT; that state is just an initial or temporary condition that could exist in nature in system disequilibrium.
…but it would be a 2LoT violation for the plates to remain at those temperatures indefinitely, which is of course the point. Besides, if you say it’s not a 2LoT violation, you’re only throwing barry under the bus instead of bob. There’s no way out for Team GPE, I’m afraid. Someone has to take the fall.
And yes, the GP would be in the "shade" of the BP if it was pressed up against it…but also it would be the same temperature as the BP. Thus your "shade" argument does indeed go "poof".
Now…on your way, Ball4. Off you toddle.
DREMT left out another important word: but also it would NOT be the same temperature as the BP as GP is always in the shade of the solar illuminated BP. To understand why, show your work in eqn. form to avoid word salad.
And I’m not throwing anyone under the bus. barry & bob agree with Eli’s equilibrium GPE solution from years ago. Eli is Team GPE.
Sorry, Ball4, but it has already been agreed by every single other member of Team GPE commenting at this blog that the plates are exactly the same temperature when pressed together. You must have missed the memo.
Either barry is wrong, or bob is. They can’t both be correct, as they have argued polar opposite things on this specific issue. That they both agree with Eli’s solution is irrelevant. Which is, of course, why you keep saying it…you’re trolling again.
Yes, I see DREMT is sorry. In many ways. Again, both barry & bob correctly agree with Eli’s GPE solution, there is no difference, they are both relevantly, physically correct.
No use hiding behind the word salad using an irrelevant imaginary concept which is correct in each imagination; again “show the work in eqn. form” as did Eli. Cannot meaningfully disagree or agree until 1LOT eqns. consistent with 2LOT are evident.
#2
Sorry, Ball4, but it has already been agreed by every single other member of Team GPE commenting at this blog that the plates are exactly the same temperature when pressed together. You must have missed the memo.
Either barry is wrong, or bob is. They can’t both be correct, as they have argued polar opposite things on this specific issue. That they both agree with Eli’s solution is irrelevant. Which is, of course, why you keep saying it…you’re trolling again.
“No use hiding behind the word salad using an irrelevant imaginary concept”
Exactly Ball4. DREMT is desperate to distract from his logical failures with silly red herrings.
I wonder what side Nate would take? Would he be Team Barry, or Team Bob?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oh well.
barry and bob’s silence on this thread really is deafening, isn’t it?
No. barry & bob both agree with Eli’s long ago GPE solution.
So? Who cares? We’re talking about something else, something that they disagree on. Why is it so impossible for you people to ever argue amongst yourselves about anything, ever?
“So? Who cares? Were talking about something else”
Are we, or just DREMT?
FYI
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1646949
“Barry made these same two KEY points, as I have, and DREMT has agreed with them:
1. After separation, the GP has ZERO heat flow INPUT.
2. After separation, the GP continues to have the same heat flow OUTPUT to space.
Yet DREMT is he unable to put these two facts together to conclude as Barry does:
The GP must be COOLING to space.
This is plainly NOT logical thinking on DREMTs part.”
And this is just the latest failure to find any 2LOT violation in the GPE.
Why is it so impossible for you people to ever argue amongst yourselves about anything, ever?
We don’t talk about fight club.
Just a total lack of integrity, I guess.
Nah, just a total lack of interest in playing along with your obvious distraction games.
…a total lack of integrity, I guess.
DREMT half quotes me and Barry, and claims we disagree on something.
You can’t just claim that since our initial conditions are the same, but our initial conditions on flux are different, that we disagree on something.
You are just searching for something irrelevant to argue with us on because you can’t win on the main point.
That main point being that the Green Plate violates the second law.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1645094
DREMPTY,
It takes more than a difference in temperature to have a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
You are suffering from rectal cranial inversion with severe cardiac complications.
According to barry, that’s a 2LoT violation. Insult him via me all you want, you two disagree. So, argue about it.
DREMPTY,
You are dreaming if you think you are interpreting what Barry said correctly.
We have no disagreement.
You have not found a second law violation withing the description of the green plate effect.
barry said:
"With the sun in the picture, I can see how a warmer GP would be a 2nd Law violation, but I think it is more naturally a 1st Law violation, because GP has gotten energy from nowhere."
Can you "see how a warmer GP would be a 2nd Law violation", bob? Or are you still adamantly against it being a 2nd Law violation?
DREMPTY,
Its obvious that that depends on how the green plate became warmer than the blue plate.
Do you understand that?
Spontaneously, bob. The idea is that if the GP became warmer than the BP, spontaneously, it would violate 2LoT.
Great way to wriggle out of it, by the way. You’re a skillful liar and sophist, gifted in deceiving others.
DREMPTY,
“Spontaneously, bob. The idea is that if the GP became warmer than the BP, spontaneously, it would violate 2LoT.”
Yes, it would then magically violate the second law. And the first law and mass energy equivalence etc.
But if it was radiatively transferring heat to the blue plate because it was warmer than the blue plate, that would not be violating the second law.
It could have been heated to a point warmer than the blue plate and then introduced into the system.
bob tries to pretend that anyone was thinking of a situation where the GP had "been heated to a point warmer than the blue plate and then introduced into the system."
You mistakenly initially said the situation didn’t violate 2LoT. You got caught, and now you’re spinning your way out of it.
DREMPTY
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
This is what I said before, I didn’t specify how it got warmer.
#2
bob tries to pretend that anyone was thinking of a situation where the GP had "been heated to a point warmer than the blue plate and then introduced into the system."
You mistakenly initially said the situation didn’t violate 2LoT. You got caught, and now you’re spinning your way out of it.
DREMPTY,
How do you think the Green Plate could get warmer than the Blue Plate if it wasn’t heated in some fashion.
Now what was that mistake you think you caught me out on?
Because it wasn’t saying the Green Plate being warmer than the Blue Plate being a second law violation because
“bob tries to pretend that anyone was thinking of a situation where the GP had “been heated to a point warmer than the blue plate and then introduced into the system.”
Well, I was, your mind reading skills let you down this time.
Well, I will tell you what your mistake was, one of them at least, was thinking that because the Blue Plate warms when the Green Plate is introduced, that that means there is heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue Plate.
#3
bob tries to pretend that anyone was thinking of a situation where the GP had "been heated to a point warmer than the blue plate and then introduced into the system."
You mistakenly initially said the situation didn’t violate 2LoT. You got caught, and now you’re spinning your way out of it.
DREMPTY,
“#3”
Now who is being childish?
DREMPTY,
“#3”
Now who is being childish?
How is having the Green Plate initially at 262 a second law violation.
Please dazzle with your brilliance.
bob, we started this with me stating:
“Two ways in which GPE proponents can accept a 2LoT violation in the GPE:
1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
you responded:
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation [this is a response to 1)]
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation [this is a response to 2)]”
You called me dumb, whilst declaring that neither of the ways I’d proposed on behalf of you GPE proponents were actually 2LoT violations. You’ve now done a complete 180, and are finally acknowledging that both of them are 2LoT violations. All the while you have attempted to belittle me, and big yourself up, whilst actually all you have done is demonstrate that you don’t have a clue what constitutes a radiative 2LoT violation.
And now you want to discuss the radiative 2LoT violation in the actual GPE, despite the fact I’m still in a 23-day-long discussion about it on another thread.
Let’s see…do I want to discuss something with a rude, unpleasant, condescending jerk who has demonstrated that he doesn’t have a clue about the subject matter? No thanks bob, you’re all right.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Anyway…bob? barry? Your disagreement?
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Lets see…do I want to discuss something with a rude, unpleasant, condescending jerk who has demonstrated that he doesnt have a clue about the subject matter?
Not sure I see what the problem is there, Little Willy. Thanks for choosing to troll me, anyway. Guess you are bored.
When Bob isn’t around, Graham D. Warner wants his input. When Bob shows up, Graham D. Warner does not want to interact with him anymore.
Graham D. Warner has a problem with pragmatics.
No, I want to interact with him. I just want that interaction to involve him admitting he was wrong. As we know, though, sadly that does not happen with your kind.
> I just want
What Graham D. Warner wants is of little concern here.
It’s what he does that matters.
And what he does sucks eggs.
Just nonsense, then. OK, Little Willy.
And so Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMT,
23 days is long enough to read up on the second law and the green plate effect and figure out that you have it wrong.
Can’t admit you were wrong? That’s OK. Readers can see for themselves.
DREMPT,
When you show me to be wrong, I will admit it.
Apparently not, bob.
DREMPT,
Still haven’t explained how the green plate effect violates the second law of thermodynamics, have you?
The green plate causing the blue plate to increase in temperature is not it, because the heat transfer is from blue plate to green plate.
Got any other ideas?
My latest idea is to ignore your obvious baiting, and retire in victory.
DREMT,
I am not baiting you, I am just asking you to support your outlandish statements.
With like evidence.
Retire in victory, I would like you to just retire.
I’ll bet you would.
Not feeling very bright today? Smile and remember…
There are grown adults who actually believe that two of every “kind” or “sort” of animal traveled all the way to the Middle East to get on board an Ark built by a 500 year old man.
https://ibb.co/MDd2cSr
Or this… debunking AGW and Evolution: https://youtu.be/plW15ZkXX6U
Imagine if our civilization found that there was an ELE event in our future.
Do you think there would be an attempt to build an equivalent to Noah’s Ark? Something to ensure survival of man and all the species that support him?
There is lots of evidence of massive floods in earth’s past. If I wanted to flood the earth, I’d tilt the earth by 90 degrees for a year. That would cause a lot of water to slosh around.
Too there is evidence of the earth’s human population being reduced to a couple thousand or fewer.
Noah’s Ark is a myth. The 500 year old man is not likely unless the civilization was more advanced as ours and they had ways to extend life span. But the myth is based on something, most likely an ELE event. Did it happen as we are told? No way.
“Do you think there would be an attempt to build an equivalent to Noah’s Ark? Something to ensure survival of man and all the species that support him?”
Already ahead of you… Martians Wanted: NASA Opens Call for Simulated Yearlong Mars Mission
And of course Elon Musk has his own plans to vamoose before we all go extinct.
None of this is feasible. There’s no planet B.
Planet B, could be Venus.
But most of the trillions of people would be in orbit around Venus.
In orbit solar power is quite viable. Or unlike Earth surface, sunlight for electrical power, is free.
The issue with Earth surface solar, is relate to peak solar power. And weather. And the long distance between time zones.
The time zone problem could be shorten, in Earth’s polar region. But you get very little sunlight in Earth’s polar region {unlike Mars or the Moon]. Of course also even at equator, Mars and Moon have a much shorter distance between time zones.
Or lunar surface has viable solar energy, but Mars though not as good as our Moon, it it much better than Earth surface {despite Mars distance getting 60% less sunlight].
Of course Venus orbit is much, much better than our Moon.
Even within Venus atmosphere, it could better than our Moon.
Of course Mercury is even better. And Mercury is similarly “cold” as is our Moon. And there “could be” trillion of mineable water in the poles of Mercury.
So, Mercury could be Planet C.
A significant aspect of the Moon and Mars is natural caves {and the “caves” you could make}. So, if Moon and/or Mars doesn’t have a lot of natural cave “real estate”, you could make a lot cave real estate.
Or if have some natural real estate, one expand this real estate.
This also applies to Mercury.
Mercury has had hardly any exploration.
Mercury even though it has shortest orbital “path” to Earth, is very hard to get to from Earth. Jupiter moons are easier.\
But from Venus, Mercury is even shorter path and less “hard” to get to. Or shortest distance between planets is Venus and Mercury.
The shortest planet to Earth is Mercury, but require a lot of delta-v, and lacks an atmosphere to brake in. Next planet closest to Earth is Venus, which does have atmosphere to brake in. And if use Venus atmosphere to brake, you can get to Venus in about 2 months for Earth, or from Venus to Earth within 2 month {braking in Earth’s atmosphere]. But without braking in atmosphere, Venus to Earth is about 5 month {Mercury to fly by, is about 3 months.
So if using atmospheres, Venus and Earth are closest. And from Venus, it’s faster to get to Mars, as compared to Earth to Mars.
Or Venus is best hub of our solar system {and you can bring huge space rock to it. You “could” bring dwarf planet Ceres, to it.
Ark doesn’t understand that Evolution and the Bible are both religions.
Clint, The Bible is a book.
Very good, child. Yes, the Bible is a book.
Now get.a responsible adult to explain my comment to you.
Don’t need to do that, I am a responsible adult.
Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, the Bible, not so much.
And the Bible is not a religion either, you too slow to grasp the concepts?
Sorry bob, you’re NOT a responsible adult. You’re a child. We know that from your childish comments.
You need a responsible adult to help you. He could then explain to you the connection of the Bible to Christianity. Something you’re unable to understand by yourself because you’re a child.
Sorry Clint,
You will just have to re-read your post.
You just pointed out the distinction between Christianity and the Bible.
One is a Religion, actually a group of religions, as many different religions use the Bible.
And the Bible is still a book.
bob droege…the Bible is more than ‘just a book’. The Bible is not just a book, it’s a historical document that tries to document events. Some of it is questionable due to the zeal of early Christians who tried to steer history in a certain direction and to well-intentioned scribes who may have misinterpreted the writings. Thanks to recently discovered concealed documents, we now have a better idea of the the early days of Christianity.
Let’s get something straight. It was due to the courage and selflessness of early Christians, based on their devotion to Jesus Christ and his teaching, that we now enjoy democracy. It is encumbent on all of us to ensure Christianity does not fall to heathen forces and their anti-democratic views.
Whether you accept Christianity or not, I would think you’d have an interest in supporting the cause. All democratic institutions today owe their beginnings to Christianity and the valour of those who fought for it with their lives.
> The Bible is not just a book, its a historical document
Technically speaking, the Bible is Da Books, i.e. a collection of religulous texts. There are between 66 and 81 of them, many called “book.”
Most of these books have no historical component whatsoever: e.g. Genesis, Ruth, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, the list goes on and on. And most of the factual accounts are interpretations. They are even marked as such.
“Lets get something straight. It was due to the courage and selflessness of early Christians, based on their devotion to Jesus Christ and his teaching, that we now enjoy democracy. It is encumbent on all of us to ensure Christianity does not fall to heathen forces and their anti-democratic views.
Whether you accept Christianity or not, I would think youd have an interest in supporting the cause. All democratic institutions today owe their beginnings to Christianity and the valour of those who fought for it with their lives.”
Exactly.
So we are forgetting about democracy in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire?
“The ancient Greeks were the first to create a democracy. The word democracy comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos).”
Gordon,
“It was due to the courage and selflessness of early Christians, based on their devotion to Jesus Christ and his teaching, that we now enjoy democracy”
I see you are lacking a proper liberal arts education.
Ninja’d by Nate, but I will add, as a nearly pure blooded Viking, that the Vikings also practiced democracy before Christianity.
And can you name one democratic Christian government?
‘And can you name one democratic Christian government?’
Preamble to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms: ‘Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of Law’
Kennui’s monarchism is showing once again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_God
Ken,
“Preamble to Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of Law”
Are you assuming that refers to the Christian god?
“Are you assuming that refers to the Christian god?”
I would guess same as US and UK, Judeo-Christian God
Which as Muslim say, the good book, or includes Muslim God and a lot
other religions God.
Basically means one God, not a host nature gods or political rulers being called gods. Or not Roman gods.
Why read when one could write walls of words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
The values entrenched in the Charter are those which characterize a free and democratic society, not the theocracy Kennui wet dreams about.
Well could say it’s a book of songs.
Or was kept by oral tradition, until it was written down.
similar {or the same} as Zoroastrianism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1lcAX354cg
Saying science is like religion is like saying reason is like dogma, or that doubt is certainty.
Yeah, sure.
Religion started Science.
More obvious, is that religion started Atheism.
Well, unless Atheism is worshiping god of luck-
which could be argued. Gods of luck or nature gods, are inherent
in world in which God exists.
Or God caused them, and not caused by man made religions.
Which gets back to question, why does God need a Starship.
ark…hopefully you realize that Isaac Newton was religious and wrote tomes on the Bible, which Bob D regards as just a book.
There are physicists today who preach that the universe began as a vast nothingness, and in a Big Bang, all the current mass of the universe suddenly appeared…out of nothing. Excuse me, but I prefer the story of Noah’s ark to that pack of lies.
You can lump evolution in with the lies, unless of course, you can prove that life as we know it now began in primeval muds based on the unexplained formation of life from inorganic elements. Or, perhaps you can explain the meaning of ‘natural selection’, an invention of a 19th century scientist, Charles Darwin, who offered no proof of it.
The planet specular reflection was neglected
In the billions of years of their existence, planets and moons surfaces were subjected to natural influences (which were different for every planet and moon). Those continuous influences had developed either the smooth surface pattern, or the heavy cratered (rough surface) pattern.
For planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Specular reflection of sunlight is included in Earth’s albedo observations, Christos, since that reflection is in the SW bands that spaceborne instruments are designed to measure.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
–
The specular reflection is not included in albedo. I cannot find any publication which confirms it is included.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The specular reflection is not included in albedo, because the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface all lie in a same plane perpendicular to reflecting plane.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Only the reflected SW ray is measured.
Christos, the wavelength of light is unaffected by its reflection angle.
Each CERES instrument returns unfiltered radiances (so it doesnt filter out certain polarized light) for all reflection angles between the shortwave (SW) wavelengths 0.3 and 5 micron following Loeb et al. 2001, Loeb et al., 2016. You can find these references for free on line and learn for yourself SW specular reflection from Earth is not ignored in the CERES SW instrumentation albedo data.
CERES does not wear polarized sunglasses.
And would be detected as a high intensity spike, a glint, by a satellite in the same plane.
How do they intercept, never mind measure, scattered light.
By observing the Earth system looking down from orbit (TOA). Sunlight is scattered + reflected into CERES radiometers collecting SW radiances 0.3 to 5 micron band in wavelength.
Ball4,
“SW radiances 0.3 to 5 micron band in wavelength.”
Oh yes, and the proportion of total energy contained in that bandwidth is completely unknown to you, isn’t it?
Go on, tell me someone else knows, but you can’t figure out how to post the answer!
Or are you just pretending to be intelligent?
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo. ”
Christos
You keep saying that, but you’ve never provided evidence.
The shortwave diffuse and specular radiation are both detectable by the same instruments. These make no distinction.
How do you go about measuring the proportion of the two types of reflection in what the satellites detect?
Offhand the only difference I can think of is that the specular reflection is polarised. Anyone know if the satellite shortwave sensors can detect polarisation?
ent…how does an instrument flying on a satellite detect reflection that is outside its view angle? Even with direct reflection, the angle of reflection could be outside the instrument’s view angle.
EM,
An example would be specular reflections from water, which can only be perceived from a particular direction. Or sunlight reflected by a mirror. You cannot measure how much light is being reflected unless it is shining on your instrument.
This whole albedo discussion is fairly pointless in relation to a non-existent GHE anyway.
The Earth has managed to cool from its initial molten state, and continues to cool today.
You might be thinking about hotter thermometers which are due to anthropogenic heat production. Burning fossil fuels creates heat. So does using any sort of energy. Basic physics.
I assume that you can support any disagreement with facts, so I won’t ask if you disagree. I’m sure you’ll do your best to make me look ignorant.
Carry on.
I recall Feynman teaching a physics class in Brazil. He had asked for a demonstration of light polarization. As he waited, he looked out over the ocean and commented on the light shining off the ocean. None of them got the hint. Probably all climate alarmists.
Gordon,
“I recall Feynman teaching a physics class in Brazil. He had asked for a demonstration of light polarization. As he waited, he looked out over the ocean and commented on the light shining off the ocean.”
–
Please, Gordon, I need to know, what Feynman “commented on the light shining off the ocean.” ?
–
Because I watch solar light shining off the sea every day, except summer when sun is too high.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.
“The Earth has managed to cool from its initial molten state, and continues to cool today.”
–
Exactly. Right under the some few km beneath the surface there is a still molten planet Earth.
Since it is very much hotter than its surface is, Earth cools (conducts energy from its inner) continuously – 24/7 – from every point of its surface.
–
Regardless if it is the cold +3 C oceanic bottom, the frozen Antarctic or the warm Equator areas, Earth losses energy from the inside out.
–
The average surface temperature may become higher but no, it only lessens the rate of inner Earth’s cooling. Earth cools non-stop for 4,5 bn years now.
–
“You cannot measure how much light is being reflected unless it is shining on your instrument.”
–
Exactly. That is why satellites measure the scattered from the planetary surface light (the diffuse reflection) which happens to shine on the satellites’ sensors.
–
Another example is the light we receive from Moon. It casts shadows, so it is a directional.
But actually it is the scattered solar light from the lunar surface. What we see as Moon light is the solar incident on lunar surface light’s the diffuse reflection.
–
We cannot see the lunar surface the solar light specular reflection, because it doesn’t shine in our eye.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
It clear now that the entire greenhouse gases global warming effect is based on that fundamental mistake.
When Earth’s surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION is NEGLECTED – it results to a solar energy income the huge overestimation.
–
The solar energy income is twice as much overestimated in Earth’s “Energy in” equation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have NOT found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED. You just have not yet read & understood the papers I referenced for you.
This is because CERES instrumentation looking down at Earth system picks up all SW sunlight scattered into its radiometers in the band 0.3 to 5.0 micron and processed so to be unfiltered.
Again, CERES instrumentation does not wear polarized sunglasses that filter out specular reflection.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“This is because CERES instrumentation looking down at Earth system picks up all SW sunlight scattered into its radiometers in the band 0.3 to 5.0 micron and processed so to be unfiltered.”
–
“…scattered into its radiometers…”
“picks up all SW sunlight scattered into its radiometers”
Please, Ball4, explain, where exactly it is scattered from?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From? The entire Earth system in the field of view of the SW radiometer channel. Consult the references I provided.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
You’ve never stopped.
Can’t stop whatever was never started. DREMT is just being funny.
Your trolling is infinite.
Hogle
1. ” If you want to gain better insight into how your regional climate is changing, you’d be better off calculating percentiles and frequency distribution charts and examining them over time.
To you too I say:
Stop smalltalking and stalking, Hogle, and start finally working.
You repeat all the time things which you credulously pick up out of pseudo-scientific contrarian posts e.g. at WUWT; but however, you are apparently unable to translate their blah blah into concrete results – very probably because you lack the technical skills needed to accomplish the job.
It’s exactly the same as these opulent uncertainty formulae you directly paste from text books when discussing with bdgwx.
Why do you never show examples based on real data?
*
2. ” Anomalies just hide a lot of detail and can lead to misleading conclusions. ”
So? Which ‘lot of detail’ do e.g. UAH’s anomalies hide, Hogle?
When I look at these graphs below:
(a) Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11FN98yMsSMExPmEG7smOSMbSVJbD-eCR/view
(b) Absolutes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sDs8crwhPpoghxKA-WYFY6D-1K5tiMY9/view
I rather see that anomalies reveal what is hidden by the annual cycle.
Anyone having a functioning brain understands this even better with a comparison of UAH’s LT layer anomalies with those from its LS layer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-cK13E0O3_XQfWPuDfw8MvlQds1GdEl/view
Feel free to generate by your own absolute data for the two layers, and compare them.
*
And , by the way, Hoogle: how can you on the one hand use UAH’s anomalies for the Arctic region in your posts, while on the other hand generally discrediting the concept they are based on?
Why, do you think, did Spencer and Christy never publish absolute data for their 2.5 degree grid, but only the climatology with the help of which it is possible for us to reconstruct that absolute data out of the anomalies?
Did you ever carefully read all what Roy Spencer wrote in his 2016 head post about the annual cycle?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
*
3. ” That’s why people above are getting confused about the spike. ”
The pseudo-skep~tical people’s hallmark is their inability to discuss about specific things and to always resort to general, non-committing statements instead.
Which spike in UAH’s data do you mean which would exist in anomaly form only, Hogle?
Binny,
Have you come up with a better description of the GHE than your last one?
You 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.”
So saying that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming is “nonsense”, is it?
I agree. What’s your next brilliant effort to reject reality?
walter…binny comes up with tripe like this when you corner him with science…
“top small talking and stalking, Hogle, …”.
When Binny insults you or uses ad homs, it’s a sure sign he has lost the argument.
Binny misses the entire argument that the global average is the result of statistical analysis where certain parts of the globe bias it toward warming. He goes into a mindless analysis of anomalies versus absolute values, missing the point altogether.
He is still raving about NOAA’s admission that they have slashed global reporting solid surface stations to less than 1500, basing his denial on the age of the report. Of course, he cannot supply evidence they have changed policy in the interim. Binny still rants about the thousands of stations in the historical record even though NOAA admits to using only 1500 stations.
On the Moon’s rotation, he still bases his argument that the Moon rotates on authority figures while completely ignoring evidence presented that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
“He goes into a mindless analysis of anomalies versus absolute values, missing the point altogether.”
Bingo. They’re generated from the same data. So, why does he think he’s making a better point with either form? He’s a monkey, that’s why.
> Theyre generated from the same data.
🧐
Then why does he call them absolute vs anomaly FORM?
Why would anyone wish to reanalyze data if they’re all the same?
He performed an OLS on both forms and provided me with the trends. Long term, they’re both very close; statistically insignificant. In the short term, they’re much more spread out, probably due to the nature of the different forms. One is in Kelvin units, while the other is in anomalies. But the values are the same.
I have the same question as you. I don’t understand his logic, if he has any.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
Why would anyone wish to reanalyze data if theyre all the same?”
Exactly. The endless reanalysis of historical weather observations is completely pointless.
Bindidon believes that experts can predict the future by meticulously dissecting the past.
What a time-wasting dummy, don’t you agree?
Mike Flynn,
If you followed my exchange with Monkey Man, you’d have realized why I asked this question. But since your dumb as a bell, it may not matter much if you did.
Please continue to play dumb.
Cheers!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Why would anyone wish to reanalyze data if theyre all the same?”
Exactly. The endless reanalysis of historical weather observations is completely pointless.
Bindidon believes that experts can predict the future by meticulously dissecting the past.
What a time-wasting dummy, dont you agree?
Willard,
Are you a little kid whose parents let you use the internet?
Monkey Man,
I’m not the one who poasts combat games runs on my YT account.
Oh look at the super courageous Hogle boy…
You’ll never see him dare contradict Robertson’s nonsense about the lunar spin:
” On the Moons rotation, he still bases his argument that the Moon rotates on authority figures while completely ignoring evidence presented that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. ”
And you’ll never see him dare contradict Robertson’s nonsense about NOAA’s famous 4500 stations ‘slashed’ because their measurements were communicated by hand via fax or telex:
” He is still raving about NOAAs admission that they have slashed global reporting solid surface stations to less than 1500, basing his denial on the age of the report. Of course, he cannot supply evidence they have changed policy in the interim. Binny still rants about the thousands of stations in the historical record even though NOAA admits to using only 1500 stations. ”
*
” He’s a monkey, that’s why. ”
Well… if Hogle insults me by name calling me a monkey all the time, then I’ll counter-insult him, by saying that he behaves with regard to Robertson like a female monkey showing her pink butt to the dominant male.
Basta ya!
*
The very best is that as I started processing GHCN daily in 2017, the weather station set had about 80,000 units, of which about 35,000 measured temperatures (unfortunately, I couldn’t anticipate that a dûmb, stubborn lîar like Robertson would bore us during years and years with his 1500 station nonsense; otherwise I of course would have stored all increments since then).
Today, the entire station list has 125,988 entries all around the world, of which 40638 measure temperatures.
This means that 7 years later, there are in GHCN daily over 45,000 additional stations, of which over 5,000 additional stations measure temperatures compared to the situation in 2017.
*
Poor Robertson with his 360 degree nonsensical, egomaniacal blah blah about Pirani gauges, NOAA stations, the time, Clausius, Einstein, the lunar spin etc etc etc.
Poor Hogle monkey girl, who credulously follows her dominant male Robertson. But she deserves that!
Gordo posts another of his usual rants based on his ignorance of physics, writing:
Trouble is, the Moon does not present the same exact same “face” to the Earth at every Full Moon. Each is slightly different beause of the well documented Librations in Longitude and Latitude. One might think that Gordo would have figured this out by now, since he claims to be an engineer, but, for some reason, he still insists on posting nonsense.
R. E. Swanson
When James Webb’s mission began, I asked the team per email if their telescope could achieve a few minutes of idle time per day to observe a fixed point on the Moon – so that everyone could understand that the point’s observed trajectory would not be the same as if the Moon would not spin during its orbiting around Earth.
Their disappointing answer was:
Our moon is too bright for us to observe!
I then suggested to them that they observe something much further away, such as one of Jupiter’s four Galilean moons, which are known to behave exactly like ours for the same reason.
No idea if they did or not… I won’t be contacting them again.
Bindi, they likely didn’t answer you because they [correctly] couldn’t make sense out of your request.
Observing Moon from L2 would only be the same as observing from a distant star. Or observing a ball-on-a-string from outside its orbit.
You STILL can’t understand anything about orbital motion. And, you can’t learn….
–Their disappointing answer was:
Our moon is too bright for us to observe!
I then suggested to them that they observe something much further away, such as one of Jupiters four Galilean moons, which are known to behave exactly like ours for the same reason.
No idea if they did or not I wont be contacting them again.–
Other than Moon being too bright {and too close} you looking in the direction of our Sun {which in one reason to have it in L-2, you don’t risk of ever needing to look anywhere close to the sunlight which will fry your telescope.
Has for Jupiter moons and Saturn moons, they have done some of that.
As for Jupiter and Saturn, an example:
https://www.space.com/europa-jupiter-moon-james-webb-space-telescope-carbon
And:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2023/06/30/saturns-rings-shine-in-webbs-observations-of-ringed-planet/
When I say anomalies hide information, I mean you lose information regarding the elements that contribute to temperature. I gave Gordon the example last week that our ‘record hot’ August wasn’t due to extreme heat but the delay of the monsoon season here, which normally cools down temperatures from peak summer levels. It was just an extended summer for that reason.
What I would do is take data for March, for example, at my local CRN station spanning from 2008 to 2023, and calculate 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles with them. There’s a lot of variability within that period: warm and dry, snow and cold, wet and warm, mild, etc., but maybe not enough time. The CRN is just the best data available. That way, we can better determine what is truly unusual. One issue with anomalies is that they are sensitive to extreme events. A long heat wave is not unusual here, but it could disproportionately affect the average and bring the deviation up to where people claim it was warmer than usual, when in actuality, it was a normal month.
A month with both record cold and record heat would have some in-between average and maybe a near-average anomaly, which makes no sense.
“Why do you never show examples based on real data?”
I provided you with an example using my May snowfall data in Fairbanks, but you responded with an angry rant full of ad hominems, like a riled monkey in a cage at the zoo.
walter…Binny can’t help behaving like a mad monkey in a cage, he is Frenchman who has been banished to Germany. No other country would take him.
Bindidong escaped over the berlin wall – in the wrong direction
Oh look!
The ankle-biting dachshund is here again. The very same dachshund who was recently whining about just one reply by barry.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!
“Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
barry didn’t leave a reply, he only left a piss-mark
Robertson
Feel free to write your stoopid trash; it doesn’t disturb me.
And have a look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640946
You will never learn, Robertson.
“You will never learn, Robertson.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#2
Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!
Hogle
It’s late here right now, so I will reply in short mode:
1. ” I provided you with an example using my May snowfall data in Fairbanks, but you responded with an angry rant full of ad hominems, like a riled monkey in a cage at the zoo. ”
Wrong, Hogle.
I simply disagreed 100% to your imho superficial, irrelevant blah blah.
You were the one who got angry about my harsh opinion.
Your bad. Do better work!
*
2. ” The CRN is just the best data available. ”
100% agreed !!! At least you don’t paste the discrediting trash against USCRN posted sometimes at WUWT during the last few years.
*
The best way how to show you how wrong you are with your opinion about (1) averages and (2) anomalies is to present a comparison I recently made for the Corn Belt area between
– all (986) GHCN daily stations located in the area and having sufficient data for anomaly construction
and
– the average of the 18 USCRN stations in the same area
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1golQNz9leZvUq20BlozyMkvn55R_YqGW/view
And now look below at the zoom into the data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
In red: the anomaly average of the 986 GHCN daily stations
In green: the anomaly average of the (ONLY) 18 USCRN stations
*
Can you see how incredibly well many peaks and drops AND even the 36 month running means compare?
Look at the similarity of the tiny wriggles in the running means…
How do you explain such an amazing match, Hogle?
*
Finally, somewhere above you wrote:
” The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged. ”
This is utterly wrong.
I’ll reply to that nonsense.
walter: The CRN is just the best data available.
Indeed. This is why some of us think the adjustments in nClimDiv (or legacy USHCN) are still leaving a slight cold bias in those datasets.
“When I say anomalies hide information, I mean you lose information regarding the elements that contribute to temperature.”
The causes of the anomalies are not ‘hidden’ they are a different topic altogether, that requires other weather data.
You might like Reanalysis data, Walter. It uses all the available weather data to produce a daily global weather model, from which the global or regional average temperatures can be derived.
For example:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
What you may not like is that it shows ~ the same climate change trend as the station data shows.
Nate doesn’t understand that the reanalysis he is linking to is part of a weather forecasting model that provides predictions for future weather. . .not climate change.
Again my stalker Bill has to argue against my post, to the death, not because its wrong or unreasonable, but simply because I made it.
And of course he is super clueless to not grasp that the daily weather enables daily local and global T measurement, which enables monthly average global T measurements, which enables tracking climate change over many years.
Indeed Nate and at a level almost as effectively as actually reading a thermometer of your own choosing.
Nate,
Here’s a new idea proposed by me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1648174
Interesting. It sounds like you are most interested in weather in one place, rather than regional or global climate change.
I also look at
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2&ortho=1&wt=1
to see the larger context of the weather patterns.
For example to try to understand where most of the warming/cooling is happening, and get some idea of causes.
So we can see the jet streams meandering bringing cold air south or tropical air north. We can see the warm Atlantic sea surface temp. We can see El Nino dissipating, but tropical land masses remaining warm.
An interesting thing is when a warm air mass moves over the ocean its effect on global temp is weak. But if it moves over land, its effect is strong.
So warm air masses might persist over Eurasia for a couple of weeks, and while there it might raises Temps ~ 5 C over a large region, raising Global Ave T.
But when it moves over the ocean it only raises sea-surface-temp a few 10ths of a degree. So Global Ave T drops.
Just noticed something interesting about NOAA. It was not formed till 1970 out of existing related field such as the Survey of the Coast, the Weather Bureau, and the Fish and Fisheries Department.
The Survey of the Coast is just that, a department that surveys the coast, checking out water depths, etc. Fish and Fisheries seems obvious, whatever is related to fish and fisheries. That leaves the Weather Bureau.
I have no doubt their data ‘was’ reliable until NOAA began going back in the data and rewriting it to suit the anthropogenic meme. Although they had existing data going back a century, none of it was related to climate analysis, therefore all NOAA has to offer is about 8 years of analysis before UAH started analyzing satellite data.
Then we have Binny lying to us about NOAA’s GHCN, where NOAA has slashed 90% of its data since 1990. Along the way, they slashed the global reporting surface station data from 6000 to less than 1500 stations. Mind you, Binny sees nothing wrong with using obsolete GHCN data in his humourous analysis.
” Then we have Binny lying to us about NOAAs GHCN, where NOAA has slashed 90% of its data since 1990. Along the way, they slashed the global reporting surface station data from 6000 to less than 1500 stations. Mind you, Binny sees nothing wrong with using obsolete GHCN data in his humourous analysis. ”
And once more, for the umpteenth time, Robertson’s completely, utterly stoopid lies.
Robertson’s dishonesty is disgusting.
“Robertsons dishonesty is disgusting.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#3
Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!
“Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
ken…”The 500 year old man is not likely unless the civilization was more advanced as ours and they had ways to extend life span”.
***
Apparently we are not that far away. According to a scientist who does research on telomeres, if we can find a way to turn them back on, a 500 year life span is not out of the question.
Telomeres are units at the end of chromosomes that protect the chromosome. As cells divide over time the telomeres get shorter and eventually they can no longer protect the chromosome. Apparently there is an enzyme called temomerase that can cause the telomere to grow again. Current research is investigating that and some telomerase products have been isolated.
The problem as I see it are ijits who are opposed to extending life, believing it will harm the planet. I anticipate a good brawl between the ijits and those who would like to live longer.
We’re back to the old problem of correlation versus causation.
The length of telomeres decreases with increasing age.
There is evidence that cells which have divided repeatedly have shorter telomeres, so there is an inverse correlation between average telomere length and age, but there is no evidence that the decrease in telomere length causes ageing in humans.
There is also evidence that when telomeres become too short, cells gets damaged. I have read Dr. Michael Fossil’s book, The Telomere revolution, and in it he claims it is feasible for humans to live till 500.
He is currently doing research of matters that will get funding like Alzheimers because not many funding agencies will fund research into extending human life.
https://michaelfossel.com/
From his blog…..
https://michaelfossel.com/blog/aging-diseases/3-0-aging-disease/
https://michaelfossel.com/category/blog/
https://michaelfossel.com/category/articles/
Gordon Robertson
A post you made above.
“An excellent video interview with Tom Shula (Pirani gauge) in which he slays the GHE while pointing out the fallacy of radiation as a heat dissipator.
He claims the real greenhouse effect is related to energy being transmitted to Earth by the Sun at the speed of light and the relatively slow dissipation of that energy by the surface.
Shula has a degree in theoretical physics and works directly in a field related to radiation and conduction/convection.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
No Gordon, Tom Shula does a terrible job! He is ignorant of the topic and does not understand emissivity. Neither you nor Shula have such understanding. If he asks any scientist about the Pirani Gauge they will quickly tell him that it has not at all similar to the Earth Surface. I think Shula went bonkers at some point.
He claims that the Earth surface emits like a Pirani Gauge. A pirani gauge intentionally uses low emissivity material for the filament to reduce any radiant heat losses that can interfere with low pressure measurements.
The Earth surface has an average IR emissivity of around 0.95 while the Pirani Gauge filament might be 0.02. This is considerably different.
Gordon Robertson
Read through this:
https://www.thinksrs.com/downloads/PDFs/ApplicationNotes/IG1pg1052app.pdf
Go to page 13 of this manual.
Here is what it says: “A gold-plated tungsten wire is used in all PG105 gauge tubes. This material was selected
for the stability of its surface properties, reproducible electrical characteristics and
mechanical strength. Gold plating minimizes wire contamination as caused by oxidation,
corrosion and surface induced decomposition reactions. A shiny gold surface offers the
low emissivity levels required to extend the low limit of the gauge into the sub-mTorr
pressure range. “
Gordon Robertson
I do think this Shula is an intentional phony, He is finding gullible people like you to peddle ideas he can sell. There is money in this craft. Alex Jones made a fortune preying upon gullible people he could sell high cost alternate medicine to.
He raves about Conspiracies to lure in his marks and then if you believe his made up ideas, then you are gullible enough to buy his products at high prices.
You are conned and here is the proof that Shula is not exactly an honest person. I tortured myself and watched the whole video you linked to. Awful conclusions from a phony. But one thing easy to prove his dishonest presentation is he claims he worked on something with a red hot glow and in a vacuum it took hours to cool.
Well Gordon I found a video that shows he is a dishonest person luring you in a web of deception. I really don’t care about his credentials. Those could be lies as well or it would not matter, he may know better but wants to get some gain from his false narrative. I think there are lots of people out their that will fall for anything. First lure them in then sell them something at high price (like Trump tennis shoes).
Here is a video proving your Shula is a conman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lR3k0wf_iU
The red hot steel ball cools rather quickly in a vacuum.
Norman,
“The red hot steel ball cools rather quickly in a vacuum.”
Just like the red-hot Earth. The rate of cooling slows, as the absolute temperature falls. Newton’s Law Of Cooling will let you do relevant calculations.
No GHE applies.
Gordon Robertson
Here is how the phony Shula has conned your gullible mind.
At 300 K the Earth surface at 0.95 emissivity will radiate at 436 W/m^2
A Pirani gauge filament (emissivity of 0.02) will radiate at around 9 W/m^2.
It is very deceptive to use the filament in a Pirani Gauge and compare it to the Earth and conclude that the radiation budgets are fake.
I think he is way worse than you (who just don’t know science at all and can’t learn it) since he should know better if he actually studied physics. Then he is a very dishonest person
You can’t understand how molecular dipoles can generate IR and think only electrons changing energy levels produce all forms of EMR. This demonstrates you thinking is limited so I do not think you are a deceptive person. You are just gullible and believe things like you believe Russian Intelligence on Ukraine, You think Lanka’s virus view is valid, You think Einstein is wrong (you are not able to understand the experiments and observations that prove him correct…a poster using gallopingcamel explained that particle accelerators have to use Einstein’s equations to work…you did not accept this and continue to falsely believe Einstein’s theory has been verified by experiment and observation).
I would like to see you less gullible and have some resistance to conman on the Internet but that probably will not happen. You will continue to be attracted to the conmen on the Internet.
Did you buy a pair of Trump sneakers yet? Get them fast or they will be gone.
“Did you buy a pair of Trump sneakers yet? ”
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…”It is very deceptive to use the filament in a Pirani Gauge and compare it to the Earth and conclude that the radiation budgets are fake”.
***
Shula covers that in the video because apparently other ijits like you use the same lame argument.
SHULA IS MEASURING RADIATION VERSUS CONDUCTION/CONVECTION.
It does not matter where the comparison takes place, he is measuring radiation and conduction/convection at various pressures. The sea level pressure of the Earth is included in that measurement and the gauge reveals the relationship between radiation and C/C. Radiation is 260 times less effective at dissipating heat at sea level.
Gordon Robertson
You are missing my point. The filament in a Pirani gauge has a very low emissivity to radiant energy on purpose to enhance its abilities to measure what it is designed to.
No Shula never talks about the emissivity of the filament used in Pirani gauges. I watched the video.
I will help you understand my point with conduction and let you see how flawed Shula’s reasoning really is. Try to think about it without a knee-jerk reaction.
He compares the Earth radiating surface, with an average emissivity of 0.95 to a Pirani gauge filament which is below 0.1 and tries to get as low as possible.
If he used his very poor and misleading logic with conduction it would be like saying that conduction does not remove heat because asbestos surrounding a hot pipe loses almost no conductive heat. That would mean a copper block would not conduct heat very well because asbestos doesn’t.
He is comparing a very low emissivity object to a very high one and concluding that radiant energy does not remove heat well because he can’t understand the difference between a very low emissivity surface and a very high one.
It is similar to comparing a heat insulator with a heat conductor and assuming they are the same.
Shula is wrong no matter how much you like his view. It is bad science in all ways and he is one to reject easily. That is exactly why no serious scientist would consider his view as valid. They really do know better, just you lack any science background and will fall for this type of poor argument.
Shula doesn’t understand the Pirani gauge??? He worked with it!!! He has a degree in theoretical physics!!! In the semiconductor business, as he explained, much of it is done under a vacuum, like thin-film processes. Therefore, the Pirani gauge is used to detect vacuum conditions.
I don’t mind you making a fuhl of yourself, Norman, you seem to enjoy excelling at it. But you argument re emission makes no sense with regard to the Pirani gauge.
Emissivity has nothing to do with the Pirani gauge filament. They are using it only as a resistance in a Wheatstone Bridge leg so they can adjust the heat given off by the filament to the amount of heat dissipated by either radiation or a gas.
To clarify, the filament temperature is monitored with a known current through it. If the tube is evacuated and only radiation as the dissipation source, the filament will cool, the temperature will drop, and the amount of current increase required to move the filament temperature back to ‘normal’ is noted. That tells you how much heat, as power, is being dissipated.
Repeat…it has nothing to do with emissivity.
Then if a gas is introduced to the tube, it is immediately apparent that the filament cools much more quickly….260 times more quickly.
This is not rocket science. Shula revealed that air molecules are in the order of 10^27 power/ m^2. Each molecule has many electrons and each electron can absorb heat. That gives a heat dissipation power far in excess of radiation.
It’s not till an altitude of 260,000 feet that radiation equals convection for heat dissipation.
My god. I thought GR had died ages ago. But no, here he is still spouting incoherent nonsense:
“Its not till an altitude of 260,000 feet [ Thats about 80km in altitude !] that radiation equals convection for heat dissipation.”
Nurse, bring the sedatives – quick!
He is a comedian, and not a very good one at that. His writing is too close to be a misunderstanding. He mixes things up on purpose.
” It’s not till an altitude of 260,000 feet that radiation equals convection for heat dissipation. ”
Convection at 79 km altitude, huh?
Plus bête tu meurs.
Gordon Robertson
You are totally correct with this: “This is not rocket science.”
You are correct your point is not even science at all. Just junk you make up.
This is garbage you make up: “Shula revealed that air molecules are in the order of 10^27 power/ m^2. Each molecule has many electrons and each electron can absorb heat. That gives a heat dissipation power far in excess of radiation.”
The filament is made of material that has low emissivity so the effect of air molecules can be maximized. If crackpot Shula would do another experiment, with a high emissivity filament that maximizes radiant heat loss, not minimizes it he would find out he is a crackpot. You always blindly believe crackpots and can’t understand how flawed their ideas really are.
Emissivity has everything to do with it. Low emissivity means higher sensitivity to heat loss by air molecules. If the filament was made of high emissivity material the energy lost by radiation would greatly reduce the emissivity of the Pirani gauge. Also he tries to compare a filament with and emissivity of 0.02 to that of Earth surface of 0.95. Of course other heat transfer mechanisms will exceed that of the low emissivity filament. He is attempting to compare a low emitter with a very high emitter. His logic is quite bad and since I think he knows better, makes him a dishonest person. He is leading the gullible people, like yourself, along a wrong path and he is doing it on purpose becaue he knows better.
Norman
I’m afraid you waste your time.
Robertson is a 100%, 360 degree contrarian, hence never will accept any other kind of opinion.
Bindidon
It is kind of sad.
“Emissivity has everything to do with it”
In fact a small change in emissivity can conceal a very large change in temperature!
Richard…a problem with your terse replies is that you leave the reader wondering what you are talking about, or whether you understood the question.
We are talking about heat dissipation, not a large temperature change. The Pirani gauge filament is kept at a low temperature, between 50C and 100C because temperature as a whole is not the issue, it’s a change in a narrow range of temperatures that matters. In particular, it is a change in temperature that occurs between a mixed heat dissipation of radiation and conduction/convection to a dissipation via pure radiation that matters.
The Pirani gauge was used originally to detect a vacuum condition in light bulbs. The underlying theory was that heat dissipation in a heated filament should change a prescribed amount between a bulb with a normal quantity of air in it and a condition where much of the air had been removed. In other words, the amount of heat dissipation gradually reduced, some 260 times, between a full air condition and a prescribed vacuum condition.
That’s all we are concerned about, the ratio of the heat dissipation with a full complement of air molecules and the heat dissipation with most of the air removed.
What does that have to do with emissivity and a large temperature change? And where is the proof that a change in emissivity is associated with a large temperature change?
If you are inferring that a mass with a low emissivity will remain hotter, longer, I don’t disagree. What does that have to do with the Pirani gauge and the fact that radiation is 260 time less effective at removing heat than conduction/convection?
This is not a comparison of the effect of emissivity on heat dissipation it an argument about the relative effect of heat dissipation between pure radiation and conduction/convection.
The energy budget fraud claims the opposite of the reality. They claim that radiation produced 95% of the surface cooling and C/C only 5%. In the real world, it is the opposite.
That is Shula’s point.
One of the problems with Bordos replies is that they are so long that they leave the reader wondering if he is entering into some kind of trance when he writes them.
By 10^27 electrons per metre squared, Shula was talking about the number of air molecules impinging on a surface of 1 m^2. He was not referencing the filament, he was talking about why the Earth’s surface cools much better via conduction/convection than via radiation. Bazzillions of electrons do a far better job removing heat than radiation alone.
Norman, you are too much of a crackpot to understand this. When you start slamming scientists like Shula, who has a degree in theoretical physics, and who has worked directly with Pirani gauges, for no other reason than to slam him, you are being an ijit.
You are consumed about this nonsense of emissivity because you are trying to apply S-B to a problem where it does not apply. It does not matter a hoot to the Pirani gauge whether the emissivity is 1 or near 0. They are measuring the heat dissipation by the filament and even temperature is not an issue, since it is kept between 50C and 100C.
The filament does not glow, it is simply heated. They are interested only in the point where the emission from the filament is prevalent, to within an error margin. At that point, they know a certain percentage of air molecules have been removed, enough to presume a vacuum.
So, they start at STP with a certain heat dissipation measured on the filament, knowing it is mainly via conduction/convection. As the pressure is reduced, meaning air molecules have been removed,, the heat dissipation on the filament is reduced. They have established very accurate relationships between filament temperature and air pressure/radiation.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THe EMISSIVITY MAY BE, ALL THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH IS THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FILAMENT.
Here’s the clincher. When the filament is in a pure vacuum, and the power is cut, it takes forever for the filament to cool because the only dissipation mechanism is radiation. It’s the same with a thermos. A cup of coffee will cool significantly in a short period when exposed to air. If put in a thermos, the vacuum, operation only via radiation, increases the cooling time dramatically.
Filament temperature is an indication of the heat being dissipated. It does not matter a hoot how fast it is being dissipated, or how efficiently it is being dissipated, in real time, the temperature indicates how much is being dissipated via radiation and how much via conduction/convection.
The Pirani gauge is a very accurate indicator of a vacuum condition. That’s why it is used in industry to measure the degree of vacuum.
Duh!!!
But, no, Norman the ijit is telling them they are wrong because the platinum wire’s emissions is wrong.
Gordon Robertson
You are still wrong. I linked you to a video of a person putting a red hot ball of steel in a vacuum and it cooled quite fast by radiant energy.
In the Pirani gauge the filament takes a long time to cool because the emissivity of the filament is low.
I attempted to explain it to you using conduction of an insulator vs a conductor. I think it went over your head. The logic is not clicking.
The emissivity in Crackpot Shula’s case is MOST significant. Not for the operation of a Pirani gauge but for a comparison of conduction to radiant heat loss.
I did give you and example of how emissivity effects heat loss by radiant means but you were not able to understand it.
There is not much more I can do for you. You want to be gullible and believe these conmen, that is your choice.
I don’t care about Shula credentials. They make the best conmen who have credentials. You have been conned by him, Lanka, Russian intelligence, all the liars you go to. I do not know why this is. What attracts you to conmen?
We all should not forget that the stubborn ignoramus Robertson even doubts the necessity to consider general and special relativity when implementing GPS!
*
But Norman is right: the most terrible example of Robertson’s lack of technical skills and scientific knowledge really is this below, posted in September 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320188
In a series of posts each longer and dûmber than the previous one, he brazenly tried to teach engineer and scientist Peter Morcombe aka gallopingcamel that he was wrong in using Einstein’s theory when computing the size of the magnets for a synchrotron he was a co-designer of!
Here you see the amount of arrogance, ignorance and denîal inhabiting people like Robertson and his co-denîers.
Unimaginable.
Another word to add to the banned list:
d i s c o u n t e d
Dunno why.
Related to a Viscount.
Viscount
But dscount works.
Sorry… I forgot the blog’s cerberus!
dîscount
The minimum string I can get blocked is d i s c o u n t.
Same.
Testing: discoun
Testing: iscount
The UAH now spans 1.5C temperature variation , it is proof that 1.5C temperature increase causes absolutely nothing.
The catastrophe touting climate shysterz are spewing nothing but lies
Copium for deniers.
From Warren Buffett’s latest shareholder letter:
despicable that these products fail from a lightening strike.
Easy solution, put the cables underground.
Of course, that requires you to pay the extra cost, but in corporate America who wants to pay for safe, reliable electricity supply when you can have cheap electricity instead?
Lightning goes thru the ground.
But limited, in depth
Lets see:
“Does lightning travel upward or downward?
The answer is BOTH: There are distinct types of lightning strikes to earth that can travel in either direction – cloud-to-ground lightning and ground-to-cloud lightning.”
Cables:
”
“Any direct stroke to an underground cable or indirect stroke nearby the cable can result in a high voltage build-up between the shield and the core or high voltage punctures through the cable insulation, causing permanent damage.”
Q: preventing lightning affecting underground cable cables
Implementing the best practices for lightning protection in underground electrical systems is crucial to safeguarding your infrastructure from the damaging effects of lightning strikes. Proper grounding, surge protection, shielding, and regular maintenance are key elements of an effective lightning protection system.”
So not sure how, exactly but it seems if can you protect a house, you should be able to protect cables.
And underground cables seem like better way to stop forest fires- I would wildly, guess.
gb…lightning moves from the highest accumulation of electrons to the lowest accumulation, which we normally call ‘ground’. In the UK, they call it ‘earth’. It is highly unlikely that lightning could move from ground to the sky, unless you believe in the rubbish that electrons flow positive to negative.
However, it has been noted that small tracers emanate from the Earth and higher objects toward the sky just before a strike. That is more a property of static, highly charged air particles caused by thunderclouds.
A lightning strike acts like a large direct current of electrical charges flowing into the Earth from the sky. As the current enters the surface it induces a large electrical field for several feet around it. The gradient of that field can have up to several thousand volts per foot along it. If you happen to be standing perpendicular to the field, it can produced a potential difference of thousands of volts between your legs, an unpleasant prospect.
That induced potential is called a step potential, the step part meaning its the potential a human would experience over a step length. That’s why it is recommended, if caught out in a lighting storm that is overhead, that you crouch down with your feet together. Forming a ball shape in a crouch reduces the chances of being struck as the highest object in the area, and if lightning strikes nearby, having your feet together eliminates the chance of a step potential of thousands of volts forming between your legs.
I meant to add, that any electrical cables caught in an electrical field due to lighting would be subjected to the same step potential. However, those kinds of cable normally have a metallic shield around them to absorb such a potential difference. They also have a rubberized material around the shield for further protection.
Mind you, I have seen power cables used underground without the shield. They could be subjected to a tremendous electrical voltage spike that might damage associated equipment.
–Fulgurites (from Latin fulgur ‘lightning’, and -ite), commonly called “fossilized lightning”, are natural tubes, clumps, or masses of sintered, vitrified, or fused soil, sand, rock, organic debris and other sediments that sometimes form when lightning discharges into ground. When composed of silica, fulgurites are classified as a variety of the mineraloid lechatelierite.
When ordinary negative polarity cloud-ground lightning discharges into a grounding substrate, greater than 100 million volts (100 MV) of potential difference may be bridged. Such current may propagate into silica-rich quartzose sand, mixed soil, clay, or other sediments, rapidly vaporizing and melting resistant materials within such a common dissipation regime. This results in the formation of generally hollow and/or vesicular, branching assemblages of glassy tubes, crusts, and clumped masses. Fulgurites have no fixed composition because their chemical composition is determined by the physical and chemical properties of whatever material is being struck by lightning. —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgurite
I was going to say, Mars doesn’t have lightning- which some agree, but:
–Static electricity from dust storms on Mars forms amazing lightning and releases chlorine
24.02.2023
Dust storms on Mars pose a serious danger. While dust devils occur regularly, dust storms happen annually and can cover territories the size of a continent for weeks. Every three Martian years (5.5 Earth years) storms become so large-scale that they cover the entire planet and last up to two months. —
https://universemagazine.com/en/static-electricity-from-dust-storms-on-mars-forms-amazing-lightning-and-releases-chlorine/
So, after we stop the dust storms, there will not be lightning.
ark…your article is a testament to the mental instability of climate alarmists. The inmates are trying to run the asylum.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Copium for deniers part deux.
Utility provider Xcel Energy said in a Thursday statement that its facilities appeared to have been involved in igniting the Smokehouse Creek fire in the Texas Panhandle.
The fire, which engulfed more than 1 million acres, is the largest wildfire in Texas history and among the largest in U.S. history.
A local resident recently filed a lawsuit against the company saying a wooden utility pole, allegedly owned and operated by a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, “broke” and fell Feb. 26 “igniting” the Smokehouse Creek wildfire.
On the bright side, the company said it does not believe its facilities played a part in igniting the Windy Deuce fire, however, which burned more than 140,000 acres and impacted many structures in another part of the Texas Panhandle.
What’s your point?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Kerrydiot is still at it How can anybody be this stoopid is beyond me
https://www.foxnews.com/media/top-dem-mocks-kerry-russia-improve-image-action-climate-change-absurd
Kerrijit was claiming Putin would get points for doing something about global warming. Putin is not stoopid, he gets the science whereas Kerry comes across as a horses pituity.
Russia’s average yearly temperature is below 270 K {-3 C}.
And global warming is mostly about warmer winters; why would Russia want global cooling?
Of course you could ask same question in regards to China, which a lot warmer, but 8 C is not very warm.
China once upon a time was planning to explore the World, it’s failure was blamed on it’s ruling class [they burned the ship to prevent any future planning]. But maybe the reason was because China was getting colder. Or as wild guess, the average temperature was probably around 6 C and was predicted to get colder.
If China average become 6 C, it seems it would cause a fair amount problems, and a lot worry if it was going to get colder.
gbaikie
” Russia’s average yearly temperature is below 270 K {-3 C}. ”
Where did you get that from?
Here is raw, unadjusted GHCN daily data for Russia:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WW1oyrEmao-DleR2UPt6pynLPgLTUtYA/view
Even if it looks like an alarmistic anomaly chart, what you see are yearly absolute temperature averages; their mean is -0.05 C, i.e. 0 C.
Trend since 1901: +0.05 +- 0.02 C
Trend since 1979: +0.52 +- 0.06 C
https://berkeleyearth.org/
Specifically, Russia:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/Russia
They also calculated average land {about 10 C}
And lets look at Canada:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/Canada
And China:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/China
Though should include, India:
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/China
which has average of almost 25 C
And isn’t India subcontinent, but just the yearly average of country.
Ahaaa… suddenly everything becomes different.
If Berkeley writes:
” They also calculated average land {about 10 C} ”
where did then your previous -3 C above come from, gbaikie?
*
Here is an anomaly based chart comparing GHCN daily to Berkeley Earth
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kW6joChHzNvnMezlehS941iAawhU_zR7/view
One might ask: where does come this extreme difference in early data between the two sources?
Answer: Berkeley Earth is known since many years to be the climate data provider with the most station data sources.
Between 1900 and 1930, GHCN daily has with around 70 stations about ten times less stations than from 1930 on… and it shows.
— Bindidon says:
March 10, 2024 at 3:52 PM
Ahaaa suddenly everything becomes different.
If Berkeley writes:
They also calculated average land {about 10 C}
where did then your previous -3 C above come from, gbaikie?”
I thought that might cause problems. But I say, a lot, on this board that the global land average temperature is about 10 C. And also say average ocean surface temperature is warmer which causes the global average surface to be about 15 C.
So, I was mentioning where I got that global land surface temperature of 10 C from.
Which is from a study by berkeleyearth.org and they said they going to attempt to do study get more exact number from Ocean average temperature. But I would guess, they didn’t. But it has been mentioned in various place that global average ocean temperature is around 17 C. A problem is, do you count ocean when covered by ice. And do count water under the ice or air temperature above ice [which can be very cold] or do you simply exclude sea ice. And sea ice is fairly small area.
I roughly just exclude it. And I would favor it was counted as land area {which would make land area a bit colder than the 10 C
average]. But also could have three bins, ocean, sea ice, and global land area. But if made separate bin, you have measure the temperature above sea ice, which would require a lot work [or money is needed- and I have never heard anyone, even give a rough guess.
Much easier to just ignore it.
Sorry gbaikie
… but the longer your replies to what I write, they less they give an answer to my questions, like this:
” where did then your previous -3 C above come from, gbaikie? ”
What you write above is totally confused.
I have roughly gone over Berkeley Earth claim- in my head and scribbling things down. Also difference of temperature of Southern and Northern hemisphere.
Or also it’s long known, thing of about 1 to 2 C difference of North and South.
Or anyone would know south should be warmer- and kind of mystery why it, isn’t a lot warmer. In terms of scribbling, land, south is 8 and north is about 12, and largely from Africa and Australia balancing out Antarctica, and Africa also brings North up quite a bit.
Roughly to get an idea.
Anyhow I roughly got how they got the number, and took it as more of learning thing then checking their number.
And also went over oceans- as similar exercise.
where did then your previous -3 C above come from, gbaikie?
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/Russia
The graph at top.
Which goes from -8 to -1.5 C
There yearly spikes where year average has been as cold as about -7.5 C
And recently spiked nearly to -1.5 C.
And rising trend line ends at just above -3.5 C
First 1/2 20th century, averaged above about -5.5 C, and since 1970s
it risen by about 2 C
It’s been awhile, so decide search and see if above sea ice has average temperature. So first hit:
https://poseidonexpeditions.com/about/articles/temperature-in-arctic-circle/
The temperature in the Arctic Circle area can be regarded annually or month-by-month and is usually monitored separately for representative geographical areas. Here is a comparison for annual averages of the temperature in the Arctic Circle:
{gives list of stations in Arctic, but does say:
…
Canadian Briya Resolute -16.2 C (3.2 F)
Arctic Basin NP 7-8 -18.2 C (-0.4 F)
Greenland (Ice Sheet) Centrale -28.1 C (-18.4 F)\
And says:
— Conclusion
If you want to know the average temperature in the Arctic Circle, think of a specific location and season first because the findings will be much more representative. For a purely scientific interest, you can study resources like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), specifically their Arctic program. And for travelers looking to discover the beauty and nature of the northern latitudes with summer cruises, just know that the weather is more than adequate for a visit, given the right clothing and gear. —
And:
— Is the Arctic or Antarctica colder?
The Arctic has an average winter temperature of -34 C (-30 F), and the Antarctic winter is about two times colder: −60 C (−76 F).–
{It doesn’t seem right but they give winter average temperature of whole area and in winter- mostly sea ice.
I will look around a bit more.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Forms of democracy occurred organically in societies around the world that had no contact with each other.
Non-western pioneers
Vaishali, capital city of the Vajjika League (Vrijji mahajanapada) of India, is considered one of the first examples of a republic around the 6th century BC.
Other cultures, such as the Iroquois Nation in the Americas also developed a form of democratic society between 1450 and 1660 (and possibly in 1142[42]), well before contact with the Europeans. This democracy continues to the present day and is the world’s oldest standing representative democracy.
Greece and Rome
The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Many contrarian and cranks still cling to myths surrounding the Magna Carta.
“Other cultures, such as the Iroquois Nation in the Americas also developed a form of democratic society between 1450 and 1660…”
***
Are these the same Iroquois who captured and murdered Brother Brebeuf, a Catholic priest? The same Iroquois who kidnapped Pierre Radisson…twice…holding him in slavery while beating him for escaping?
I guess wee willy has never heard of the great Iroquois game of running the gauntlet. Offenders were required to run through a lineup of the Iroquois while they were beaten with sticks.
Some democracy. Wee willy has fallen for the current propaganda being spread by aboriginals, while they continue to fill the heads of their children with nonsense passed down generation to generation by word of mouth.
The Iroquois were no different than the Chipewyan and their leader Matonabee, who accompanied Hudson Bay explorer Samuel Hearne on a trek to the mouth of the currently-named Mackenzie River. En route, for fun and entertainment, they slaughtered a village of Inuit.
The Chipewyan, like the Iroquois, had another unique trait. They made the women did all the work.
Great democracy!!!
“They made the women did all the work”.
Great English!!!
Got caught in one of my mid-sentence editing procedures. Started out to say they made sure the women did all the work, changed in mid-stream and got caught.
Moral….don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.
Let’s assume that Bordo’s butchered logic applies: anecdotes of massacres undermine democracy.
The Massacre of Glencoe. Some democracy.
The Eigg Massacre. Some democracy.
The Massacre of Tranent. Some democracy.
The Dunblane massacre. Some democracy.
The Dunoon massacre. Some democracy.
The massacre of Monzievaird. Some democracy.
Bordo savagely butchers logic every day since at 2014 at Roy’s. The pinnacle of civilization.
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesn’t work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasn’t so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
Mike Flynn,
The Westminster system is a form of democracy.
What are you braying about?
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote –
“The Westminster system is a form of democracy.”
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that “climate science” and “political science” are forms of science.
Mike, Mike,
Your Alzheimer is kicking in once again.
Ask your day nurse for help.
Please do it now, or else you may forget.
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote
“The Westminster system is a form of democracy.”
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that “climate science” and “political science” are forms of science.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You repeated your comment.
Do continue to play dumb.
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote
“The Westminster system is a form of democracy.”
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that “climate science” and “political science” are forms of science.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote
The Westminster system is a form of democracy.
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that climate science and political science are forms of science.
And then you wrote:
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote
The Westminster system is a form of democracy.
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that climate science and political science are forms of science.
And then you wrote –
Democracy? Like communism, good in theory.
Doesnt work too well in practice.
The UK experimented with it for a few years, but realised the monarchy wasnt so bad, after all.
No form of government is perfect, otherwise someone would have recorded it somewhere, and everyone would practise it.
We just keep on stumbling along, and for some of us at least, life is OK.
You wrote
The Westminster system is a form of democracy.
So are all other systems which are not absolute monarchies or absolute dictatorships! You need to think a little before hammering away on your keyboard.
You might just as well say that climate science and political science are forms of science.
Why?
Wonky Wee Willy,
I see you accept the truth.
Well worth repeating, isnt t it?
Carry on. You’re saving me effort, and that can’t be bad, can it?
I always accepted the truth that nobody knows what you are braying about, Mike.
Including you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Vernal equinox occurs next week. Calculated day/time is March 19 at 11:06 P.M. EDT — the first day of spring. Sun crosses the equator, on its move to Summer Solstice — or “global warming” in the Northern Hemisphere.
Coincidentally, the Polar Vortex is starting to form at the South Pole. An “ozone hole” will form due to the Polar Vortex. Children believe ozone holes are caused by manmade chemicals, not realizing ozone holes existed before the chemicals.
The same children believe CO2 can warm Earth’s surface temperature….
Once again, Clint R baby tr0ll’s argumentation at the ‘ball-on-a-string’ level.
Clint R always speaks about ‘children’, and doesn’t even feel he is one of the most childish behaving people on this blog.
Speaking of the “ball-on-a-string” Bindi, do you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin” yet?
Without a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
Getting mad at others, because you haven’t done your homework, is just childish, huh?
“Coincidentally, the Polar Vortex is starting to form at the South Pole.”
Just now starting??
“The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earths poles. It ALWAYS exists near the poles “
Solar wind
speed: 472.9 km/sec
density: 1.59 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Mar 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 99
“Sunspot AR3599 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
which is directly facing Earth
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.21×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
And:
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
04 March – 30 March 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels with a chance for
R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate) radio blackouts throughout the outlook
period.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Of course we now have a chance of X class flare
Solar wind
speed: 461.4 km/sec
density: 1.75 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 91
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 129 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.20×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Low
It seems spot number going remain around 91 for few days and in several days the big spot which was on nearside {a couple times} will return again to nearside.
But such hope might not be realized and March could have low number
and might cross the red line.
Oh the X-flare guess was wrong, forgot to include:
“The magnetic field of sunspot AR3599 has decayed a little. The delta configuration is gone. It now has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares.”
It’s looking to me, that first guesses of 25 max were all, more or less, correct, but the “updates” or latest guesses about the cycle could be off {or wrong} by quite a bit. But I will wait for April results.
Solar wind
speed: 399.9 km/sec
density: 1.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 99
“Sunspot AR3599 has regained its delta-class magnetic field. It once again poses a threat for X-class solar flares.”
It’s back.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.10×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
Maybe we will get spotless day within a week
Solar wind
speed: 364.7 km/sec
density: 4.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 77
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.07×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
Chances of a spotless day, seems higher.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
11 March – 06 April 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels with a
chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) flares on 11-14 Mar due
primarily to the flare potential of Region 3599. Quiet to unsettled
levels are expected on 15-26 Mar. On 27 Mar-06 Apr, a chance for
M-class flares is once again likely as Region 3599 returns to the
visible disk.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.–
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Just checking, and there seems to be some agreement
Solar wind
speed: 437.2 km/sec
density: 4.75 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 56
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
Chance of a spotless day got lower.
Two yet to be numbered spots appeared from farside- they look like grew from tiny spots to small spots. And probably grow bigger, though they might disappeared at some point, hence a smaller chance of spotless.
Solar wind
speed: 439.3 km/sec
density: 2.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 68
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
March number may go below 99, or go below red line.
And blue line {the averaged} could continue going down.
Continuation of the post
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640975
in which I compared, for the Corn Belt (40N-48N 105W-85W), 986 ‘bad’ surface stations from the GHCN daily data set with 18 ‘pristine’ stations of the USCRN station set:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1golQNz9leZvUq20BlozyMkvn55R_YqGW/view
with a zoom into the series’ beginning:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
While the cascaded running mean of the USCRN average shows for its active window a trend of +0.10 +- 0.05 C / decade, the trend shown by the same GHCN daily average is -0.18 +- 0.05 C / decade.
*
Conclusio: is this not a contradiction to what Ken recently wrote?
” Local temperature has demonstrably been altered by urban heat island effect. UHI is too small to affect climate on a global and lasting scale. ”
*
Some might argue that the Corm Belt merely consists of a maize and wheat desert, and that hence no UHI can be expected there.
This is wrong, of course: the population density in the Corn Belt is roughly 17 inhabs/km^2, compared to 23 for the whole US.
No wonder: there are not only 3 big cities with more than 1 M inhabs and 6 with more than 500K; there are also 44 with more than 100 K, 557 with more than 10 K and 2222 with more than 1 K.
Best conditions to observe UHI, as it seems; and this therefore is once more a point questioning how accurately UHI is quantified.
*
Now let us compare the data of these 986 ‘bad’ GHCN daily stations with the ‘good’ UAH LT data above them :–)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuYJQZOx_MUDbtSJwfKSsNRHEufp777G/view
Again we zoom also into the time series’ beginning:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1KAor-ctBcgXslPEWjiCZ3RmIBm8qOJ/view
The correlation between LT and GHCN daily is, as expected, not as strong as that between USCRN and GHCN daily. No wonder: LT is a tiny bit farer away.
But… surprisingly, UAH’s trend for the cascaded running mean of the 36 grid cells above the Corn Belt is also higher than that for GHCN daily and even higher than that for USCRN: 0.15 +- 0.03 C / decade.
Of course running means are SO accurate.
Oh Blindsley H00d suddenly means that cascaded running means based on Pratt coefficents are no longer accurate, as it seems.
And no one with a functioning brain (some here apparently don’t) would doubt that simple running averages are a wonderful tool for pointing out the smallest similarities between two time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
that were generated from fundamentally different data sources – similarities that are thoroughly eliminated by the cascades.
*
But… Blindsley H00d is an over and over opinionated person: for him, ideology comes first. What simple running means show – regardless how informative – is by definition garbage.
You mean YOUR cascaded running means which are not the same as anyone else’s cascaded running means. They let though WAY too much high frequencies. Fact. Your calculations are wrong.
Blindsley H00d
1. ” You mean YOUR cascaded running means which are not the same as anyone else’s cascaded running means. ”
No they aren’t.
Their construction is absolutely identical to Greg Goodman’s specification which he posted a decade ago.
And you’d better refrain from doubting the correctness of my window calculation out of Vaughan Pratt’s coefficients: you once tried about the 60/50/39 cascade, and miserably failed.
*
2. ” They let though WAY too much high frequencies. Fact. Your calculations are wrong. ”
So, they are wrong, let through WAY too much high frequencies?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuYJQZOx_MUDbtSJwfKSsNRHEufp777G/view
*
Here is the proof of both your incompetence and your dishonesty:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ON49-u-yj-kCYh8evMbrpsB6WuLc78z0/view
Both graphs were produced according to the very same Goodman specification. The only difference is… the cascaded windows’ sizes.
*
Once more, you were utterly wrong, like in your incompetent claim about alleged discrepancies between mean, medians and full averages when processing USCRN hourly data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
Blindsley H00d: refrain from ‘comment’ing my graphs. The more you do, the deeper you fall.
“No they aren’t”
Yes they are. Show us the cascaded running mean constructed by 3 passes of running means on a spreadsheet such as Excel. That is just one of the ways this can be constructed. That will show less high frequencies pass through just as any one else will.
“refrain from comment’ing my graphs”
I comment on your maths, not just your graphs.
Aa an example of your incompetence see
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
which you filed above. This has way too much high frequency in its pass through for a cascaded running mean.
Let us see what the global CR3Mean and CR3median are for UAH (current)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/uah-global.jpeg
For some reason the Y axis is left unexplained.
Blindsley H00d
” Aa an example of your incompetence see
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
which you filed above. This has way too much high frequency in its pass through for a cascaded running mean. ”
*
You are really, together with Robertson and a few other deners, one of the dûmbest, least competent persons.
Didn’t you see this graph, Blindsley H00d?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuYJQZOx_MUDbtSJwfKSsNRHEufp777G/view
THIS graph is the one with the CASCADED running means.
*
Your stoopid, alleged ‘example of my incompetence’ was a zoom into SIMPLE running means, you poorish idot.
Why were you, the blog’s best statistician (Original sound Robertson), unable to figure out such a trivial fact yourself?
*
The very best is that you are opinionated to such an extent that you are unable to understand why I intentionally showed the SRMs: namely because only these are useful for a comparison at tiniest, lowest level.
The CxRMs throw all such interesting details away – details which of course are of no interest to an ideologist like you.
You, Blindsley H00d, will NEVER feel even the least admiration for the astonishing similarity of these two time series:
– one generated from the average of almost a thousand “bad” GHCN daily stations (lots of them located in the near of cities & airports)
– and the other from the average of only eighteen pristine USCRN stations much farer away from UHI suspected corners.
*
But you very probably will in between belong to the perverse guys who slowly but surely discredit the USCRN station set as well, n’est-ce pas?
*
Willard is right: both axes were missing; this happened of course through zooming. But… I thought that it would be easy to compare the undocumented zoom with its graphic original…
Manifestement, je me suis trompé.
binny does not seem to understand that no one is interested in the rantings of a klown.
Have you noticed, Gordon, that no one shows any interest in your rantings. If we did, we might “learn” that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
what’s your point?
What was yours?
Here are the most incredible rantings of this blog’s most ignorant clown:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320188
Look at hist trial to teach a REAL engineer who was involved in the construction of a REAL synchrotron.
Bindidon says:
”But surprisingly, UAHs trend for the cascaded running mean of the 36 grid cells above the Corn Belt is also higher than that for GHCN daily and even higher than that for USCRN: 0.15 +- 0.03 C / decade.”
Why is that surprising? With Russian and despot disinformation looking to disarm the US I would expect the more credible science of the US to be more accurate.
So the conclusion must be that Roy’s comparison to the models is being represented to in the very best light.
The conclusion is that UAH lower tropospheric temperature data has higher trends in some regions than the raw or adjusted surface data.
Russians? Are you drinking vodka or trying to make a joke?
bill…the Democrats surpassed the Russians long ago for disinformation.
Not according to Democrat disinformation. Have to talk down to these guy’s level.
From CRN to Russia to disinforming Democrats. The intertwining streams that flow in skeptics’ minds.
Hardly not new. Not blaming the democrats for intentionally disinforming.
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so. Ronald Reagan.
Gill shows once again how much of a non-Nixonian he is.
ROFL.
Hunter boy
” Why is that surprising? With Russian and despot disinformation looking to disarm the US I would expect the more credible science of the US to be more accurate. ”
Even the most ignorant poster looks intelligent in comparison to the incredble trash you write here.
*
” So the conclusion must be that Roys comparison to the models is being represented to in the very best light. ”
Again 100% trash: I’m not discussing at all about models here but about the amazing similarity, within the area delimited by 40N-48N — 105W-85W, between three time series generated out:
– (1) the average of nearly 1000 surface stations located in that area
and
– (2) the average of 18 pristine USCRN stations located in the same area;
– (3) the average of all UAH grid cells above that area.
*
Once more you show the amazing level of your incompetence.
Barry is right: apparently you are mostly drunk when posting your nonsense on this blog.
Bindidon spirals down in an out of control spin casting insults with smoke pouring out of his tail. Chalk up another victory, I can paint another wokeboy symbol outside of my cockpit.
Seems to me your output here does nothing but reinforce the picture Roy has painted over his series of post over the past year. . .which of course should be the only topic of these comment threads.
But, for example, it weren’t for you guys trying to make a federal case over if the moon spins on its own axis or spins around the earth; you might be more convincing than you are on other topics.
But instead it only serves to demonstrate how much of a establishment sycophant you are.
You don’t just want to advance science you want to elevate it far beyond its own truth to the point you have no idea where the science ends and religion begins.
You can get angry about folks here pointing out the claims you make being inconsistent with some of the more radical other positions held here; but as I said above that anger just further undermines those positions. Seems you wear your emotions on your sleeve. I suspect you are pretty good at what you do; but maybe you need to open your eyes a bit wider.
I am now convinced that Akasofu was right. The wavy line he drew though was probably understated. The motions of Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus and Neptune has created the bumps in the road over the past 160 seen in the temperature record on an 80 year cycle in sync with the Milankovitch orbital eccentricity pattern that occurs in a cluster over the most recent 3 centuries of the past 8-9centuries. Even with surface record muddling and adjustments deemed appropriate under the theory of bringing all ”settled” science into a reasonable range of consistency; that planetary cycle is clear in the record; yet oddly ignored by those in your community.
These warming pulses measured in the early 20th century as about .6C over 3 to 4 decades is also consistent with the varying speed of glacial retreat over the past 160 years laying a basis for the underlying long term warming signal in Dr. Akasofu’s sketched out theory. So where in your community can one find a reasoned response to that?
“80 year cycle in sync with the Milankovitch orbital eccentricity pattern that occurs in a cluster over the most recent 3 centuries of the past 8-9centuries.”
You keep talking about Astrology and confusing it with the Milankovitch cycles, which occur ONLY over the many thousands of years that are required for the Earth’s orbital parameters to change significantly.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=Over%20time%2C%20the%20pull%20of,departs%20from%20a%20perfect%20circle.
Where is your evidence to support your claims of an 80 y cycle in orbit eccentricity?
Hunter boy
What are you trying again?
I repeat what you still don’t manage to grasp:
Im not discussing at all about models here but about the amazing similarity, within the area delimited by 40N-48N 105W-85W, between three time series generated out:
(1) the average of nearly 1000 surface stations located in that area
and
(2) the average of 18 pristine USCRN stations located in the same area;
(3) the average of all UAH grid cells above that area.
Stop boring us with your endlessly long blah blah.
And I add this below, because I’m afraid you are so fixated on your own ideas.
You wrote:
” Seems to me your output here does nothing but reinforce the picture Roy has painted over his series of post over the past year… which of course should be the only topic of these comment threads. ”
NO it doesn’t. Not at all. And your stuff once more clearly shows that you don’t understand anything of what I wrote.
Why aren’t you able to grasp such a simple fact that when both the most pristine US surface stations and UAH’s LT don’t show less warming than thousand weather stations (many many of them located in the near of big cities or within big airports), then it can’t be illegitimate to question how UHI is accounted for?
*
The reason is quite simple: you can’t because your thoughts – regardless what is discussed: temperatures, celestial bodies’ spin or whatever else – are exclusively driven by your personal gut feeling.
This is also the reason why you can’t write anything more valuable than claiming I would always look ‘at what my daddy tells me to say’, or ‘pour smoking out of my tail’, while you at the same time overlook how fixated you yourself are on the authorities you finally need to appeal to.
Discussing with you is the same as discussing with any other pseudo~skep~tical boy.
bindidon, i have known it to be the case for about 15 years that the us was not warming as fast as it has been in the rest of the rent seeking world. maybe what you need to do is compare russia to uah. and while you are at it cop yourself a better attitude.
” … and while you are at it cop yourself a better attitude. ”
Says the brazen little boy who dares to discredit and denigrate centuries of science – on the sole, arrogant base of his superficial gut feeling.
” … maybe what you need to do is compare russia to uah. ”
Says the brazen little boy who smalltalks about everything but in fact actually never would be able to do the jobs he smalltalks about.
And above all, your statement
” maybe what you need to do is compare russia to uah. ”
shows again that you don’t undwerstand that we are talking about UHI in the US, Hunter boy.
No problem for me to generate, out of UAH’s grid data, a time series of LT data over Russia including Siberia!
And I anticipate right now that over this region, UAH’s trend will be half of that given by the raw GHCN daily.
But… this is not the point to be discussed.
Bindidon says:
maybe what you need to do is compare russia to uah.
shows again that you dont undwerstand that we are talking about UHI in the US, Hunter boy.
No problem for me to generate, out of UAHs grid data, a time series of LT data over Russia including Siberia!
And I anticipate right now that over this region, UAHs trend will be half of that given by the raw GHCN daily.
But this is not the point to be discussed.
———————
Why?
” Why? ”
Are you really so stubborn?
I repeat
” And above all, your statement
maybe what you need to do is compare russia to uah.
shows again that you dont understand that we are talking about UHI in the US, Hunter boy. ”
*
But by the way, here is a graph perfectly confirming what anyone sees in WoodForTrees when comparing various global time series to UAH:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mdiwTQugykGe3uI0cnNt8LoSZ9sP_Wx9/view
As anywhere else, global UAH starts warmer and ends colder: no wonder that the trend is low.
The giant Russia mix perfectly simulates the Globe.
> the pregnant question is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
This guy says he has found the missing plane using Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) data that is stored in a database that was recorded on that night:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mh370-radio-signals-theory-bbc-doc-b2508628.html
“The theory is that when an aircraft crosses any radio signal it will visibly disturb it”.
***
serious nonsense.
Do more research and get back to us. There already is massive empirical evidence that it works. The question to be answered by the investigation is whether is works at that distance and that area. It is simple enough to fly a large airplane in there and see what happens.
tim…the EM making up those signals disperses at the speed of light. It moves in a straight line trajectory, it does not hang around for humans to conveniently measure it years later.
If that was the case, we’d be able to put up an antenna and pick up old radio and television programs from years gone by.
Furthermore, the EM disperses according to the inverse square law. Radio signals do not travel in convenient chunks of information that can be retrieved years after the broad.cast.
Maybe, if the rushed off to a distance star, they might intercept some whole fragments at a seriously reduced level. They won’t find them hanging around the Indian Ocean.
Pay attention. That data exists. It was recorded. They just have to analyze it and compare it to recent data if needed.
what recent data?
“Nonsense” based on what “knowledge” that you possess, Gordon?
see reply above
“it does not hang around for humans to conveniently measure it years later”
Did you not understand “data that is stored in a database that was recorded on that night”?
As the rest of that post is based on that nonsense, you have not answered my question.
And to what are they comparing that data? The suggestion is that remnants of it are still lingering in the area. That’s what I called nonsense.
How much does a Starship REALLY cost?!
Ellie in Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAwZIcCOg9I
another word for Barry’s list…
broad.cast. The old d.c hex.
Re d.i.s.c.o.u.n.t
At the risk of being vulgar, if you omit the ‘o’ it contains a word that many find offensive. Is it possible that Barry missed the ‘o’ and triggered a WordPress filter?
Same with Clint.
prof p…”My god. I thought GR had died ages ago. But no, here he is still spouting incoherent nonsense:
Its not till an altitude of 260,000 feet [ Thats about 80km in altitude !] that radiation equals convection for heat dissipation.
Nurse, bring the sedatives quick!”
***
Lock up your women and your children professor p is back.
And he is still as much an ijit as in the past.
Yes…it’s 80 km and that’s how high you need to get before radiation from air molecules equals the heat dissipation of convection/conduction. The Earth’s atmosphere exists up till about 10,000 km. So, yes, Alice, there is plenty of air at 80 km. Not enough to support human breathing but enough to heat.
The air temperature at 80 km is about 203K (-70C). There would be no temperature if there were no air molecules. Of course, that air is also heat by UV from the Sun and is warmer than it should be. Still, there would be no heat, thus no temperature, without air molecules.
It’s funny how real science silences the peanut gallery.
[BORDO] Lock up your women and your children professor p is back. And he is still as much an ijit as in the past.
[ALSO BORDO] Its funny how real science silences the peanut gallery.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Satellite Measurements Show That Global Carbon Emissions are Still Rising
–According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), human activities have significantly impacted the planet. As global greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) have continued to increase, so too have global temperatures with severe ecological consequences. Between 2011 and 2020, global surface temperatures rose by an estimated 1.07 C (2.01 F) above the average in 18501900. At this rate, temperatures could further increase by 1.5 to 2 C (2.7 to 3.6 F) in the coming decades, depending on whether we can achieve net zero by 2050.
Unfortunately, the data for the past year is not encouraging. According to the 2023 Global Carbon Budget (GCB), an annual assessment of Earths carbon cycle, emissions in 2023 continued to rise by 1.1 percent compared to the previous year. This placed the total fossil fuel emissions from anthropogenic sources at 36.8 billion metric tons (over 40 US tons) of carbon dioxide, with an additional 4.1 billion metric tons (4.5 US tons) added by deforestation, extreme wildfires, and other sources. This trend indicates we are moving away from our goals and that things will get worse before they get better!–
https://www.universetoday.com/166010/satellite-measurements-show-that-global-carbon-emissions-are-still-rising/#more-166010
So lame.
No government has lowered global CO2 emission at all.
Though China might run out coal by 2050 AD, which one might choose to call a net zero governmental inactivity.
Kind of like govt burning tree to make electrical power- and running out of trees and/or public money so as to burn them- could count as net zero.
Then we the 2050 date and things will be getting worst.
Not sure how it’s going to worst in terms governments doing anything.
Maybe they will subsidize burning dung or whale oil.
By 2040 our global population of about 8 billion probably be 9 billion. Or we will add a billion babies and get a billion more older people. China won’t adding many babies, nor Japan or South Korea.
If our Moon has mineable water, we could be mining it.
And perhaps have launched thousands of Starships- before 2040.
gb,
Emissions rising? Makes sense – more people more emissions.
Future weather (and its average, climate) will still be unpredictable in any useful sense – better than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old can do, anyway!
Won’t stop the fanatical GHE cultists banging on about the disastrous consequences of something they can’t even describe. Doom, doom, thrice doom, and all that rot!
gb…why are you reading IPCC science fiction? Are you getting bored down there in the desert. 🙂
🙂 ==== smiley
This Hot Jupiter is Doomed to Crash Into its Star in Just Three Million Years
https://www.universetoday.com/165855/this-hot-jupiter-is-doomed-to-crash-into-its-star-in-just-three-million-years/#more-165855
“The discovery of a massive gas giant orbiting very closely to its star shattered these expectations and forced astronomers to reevaluate their theories on planet formation and evolution.”
It doesn’t seem to be going fast.
But the hot Jupiter will be going fast if/when hits it’s star.
Or roughly it would be like Jupiter hitting our star.
Big boom.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A New EDF-Harvard Satellite Will Monitor Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Production Worldwide
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032024/new-edf-harvard-satellite-will-monitor-methane-emissions-worldwide
Satellite fans, rejoice!
waste of money, CO2 does nothing and methane does even less.
“The New Zealand Space Agency will use MethaneSAT for limited scans of emissions from agriculture, a sector that accounts for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the country”
I’m sure we will reduce that figure in the future! By feeding less people of course.
Are you saying that you are sure about an irrelevant squirrel, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you a squirrel?
Are you suggesting that you believe I am a squirrel, Richard?
Are you suggesting that you truly believe that I am a squirrel, Richard?
We may be headed for an unforeseen civil war situation.
Do you have a point, Bordo?
Not a point you’d understand, it was aimed at more intelligent beings.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I wasn’t asking about your comments, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/artemis-iii-landing-regions.jpg?resize=2000,1125
test
“Its 100 days of ice prospecting the Nobile Region of the moon’s south pole will enable the Artemis rover to spot future mission sites by helping NASA scientists find locations with water and other natural resources that can be used to support long-term missions there.”
Above link has map. They say going to get within 5 degree of south pole. Last lander was without 10 degree. Also rover travels around quite a bit, and could get area where the “night” last for about 4 days. And generally saying lasts for week {assuming traveling is possible]. Also going into dark area and has headlights
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2024/03/08/NASA-VIPER-lunar-rover-ice/8521709837606/
Anyways, later this year.
If N=0 (Earth non rotating) implies T=absolute zero.
That is obviously nonsense.
If N=16 (Earth rotating very fast) implies T=576K – hotter than Mercury! More nonsense.
You could make Earth spin really fast and make it hotter than the sun !
Back to school for you.
Thank you,studentb,for your response.
“If N=16 (Earth rotating very fast) implies T=576K hotter than Mercury!”
–
If N=16 , according to the Tmean equation, (16)^1/16 = 1,1892
288K * 1,1892 = 342,5K
It is very much lower, than what you say.
–
“You could make Earth spin really fast and make it hotter than the sun !”
No, I could’t make it hotter than the sun.
studentb,
1). a theoretical equation has its limitations.
2). we know the Earth’s average surface temperature, from the satellite precise measurements, it is 288K.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…it’s a waste of time replying to stoopidb. He is far too stoopid to understand basic science.
“No, I couldt make it hotter than the sun.”
Yes you can, just spin the Earth at 1.6 * 10 **21 (extremely fast) and the temperature is 6090 K (hotter than the sun).
So you see children, the theory is still nonsense.
You still haven’t addressed the problem of a non-spinning Earth having a temperature of absolute zero.
Also, the fact that GR has been been triggered in support immediately tells everybody that the theory is rubbish.
I support Christos because his posts make good scientific sense, as opposed to your mindless natterings. Your notion that the Earth could warm to a higher temperature than the Sun through spinning faster is typical of your rants.
Thank you, Gordon.
–
–
studentb,
“Yes you can, just spin the Earth at 1.6 * 10 **21 (extremely fast) and the temperature is 6090 K (hotter than the sun).”
studentb, I cannot spin the Earth so fast. I cannot spin planets or moons – it is all thought experiments what you propose…
“You still havent addressed the problem of a non-spinning Earth having a temperature of absolute zero.”
Non-spinning Earth is an impossible task, you still spin our Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You still havent addressed the problem of a non-spinning Earth having a temperature of absolute zero.
Non-spinning Earth is an impossible task, you still spin our Moon.
Then why isn’t the non-spinning Moon at 0 Kelvin?
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Then why isnt the non-spinning Moon at 0 Kelvin?”
–
Good question. Here it is what happens. Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis, but nevertheless, Moon orbits Earth, and by orbiting Earth there is a diurnal cycle (the day-night change) the solar irradiated and the dark periods on Moon’s surface.
For the cause of my research it doesn’t matter if Moon rotates on its own axis. What matters is Moon actually having a sunrise and a sundown, like Earth and all other planets and moons in solar system have.
And everywhere else in the Universe, planets and moons, since they orbiting their respective mother star, all of them have the succession of day and night, all of them have diurnal cycle – because when an object in space orbits a star, inevitably all the sides of the object get subjected to the EM energy interaction processes.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Firstly:
“Non-spinning Earth is an impossible task, you still spin our Moon.”
You are dodging the question.
Take a satellite (or small planet) observing the sun by orbiting it and keeping one face always directed at it.
It does not spin. N=0 therefore T=0 K.
Yet we know that T is much greater then 0 K.
The formula breaks down.
Secondly
“every mathematical formula has its limitations.”
OK, what are the limits to your formula?
i.e. at what value for N does it break down?
Tell us please.
“I support Christos because his posts make good scientific sense, as opposed to your mindless natterings. Your notion that the Earth could warm to a higher temperature than the Sun through spinning faster is typical of your rants.”
It is not “my notion”, it is an implication.
If you disagree with the implication you must disagree with the theory.
You seem to have some cognitive problem.
More likely it is a problem of not understanding basic science. Which is why you were probably limited to being an engineer.
Thank you, studentb,
“Take a satellite (or small planet) observing the sun by orbiting it and keeping one face always directed at it.”
–
What you claim is impossible, it is only a thought experiment, it doesn’t happen in space, there is not anything so much perfect out there.
–
It is not the (N) alone, it is the (N*cp)^1/16 we should discuss about.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So it’s not about spin at all.
What you are saying is that objects with a shorter diurnal period have a higher average temperature than objects with a longer diurnal period.
Whether the diurnal period is due to spin, orbital period, tidal locking or some combination of factors does not matter.
Thank you, Ent.
” objects with a shorter diurnal period have a higher average temperature than objects with a longer diurnal period.
Whether the diurnal period is due to spin, orbital period, tidal locking or some combination of factors does not matter.”
–
Yes, exactly – everything else equals – “objects with a shorter diurnal period have a higher average temperature than objects with a longer diurnal period”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’d guess studentb is mocking a theory that the temperature on the surface of a planet is proportional to its spin.
studentb, every mathematical formula has its limitations.
Let’s take velocity for example: V = S/t
It is a simple and well understood and accepted formula.
Still, if you put
S =150.000.000 km
and t =1min
you will very much exceed the speed of light.
–
Does it make the formula of velocity wrong? No.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
An object that would go at 150K km per minute would indeed exceed the speed of light. This is not a limitation of how we conceive velocity, but a limitation of the physical world. The difficulty is in finding an object that goes at 150 km per minute, not in conceiving the velocity of an object that would go 150 km per minute.
If what matters for a celestial body is actually having a sunrise and a sundown, then why would you only consider its spin rate? After all, spinning objects are influenced by it the same way the only celestial body in the known universe that presumably does not spin.
Thank you, Willard, for your response.
“If what matters for a celestial body is actually having a sunrise and a sundown, then why would you only consider its spin rate?”
–
When considering the planet or moon spin rate, we can do a comparison between the planet or moon spin rate and their respective average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“When considering the planet or moon spin rate, we can do a comparison between the planet or moon spin rate and their respective average surface temperature.”
Small space rock can spin very fast.
Have you looked that them?
“This is a list of fast rotators”minor planets” (which includes asteroids) that have an exceptionally short rotation period, also called “rotation rate” or “spin rate”. In some cases the rotation period is not constant because the object tumbles (see List of tumblers). In this list the periods are sourced from the Light Curve Data Base (LCDB),[2] and are given in both seconds and hours.
Most minor planets have rotation periods between 2 and 20 hours.[1][3] As of 2019, a group of 887 bodies most of them are stony near-Earth asteroids with small diameters of barely 1 kilometre have an estimated period of less than 2.2 hours. According to the Minor Planet Center, most small bodies are thought to be rubble piles conglomerations of smaller pieces, loosely coalesced under the influence of gravity. Bodies with a period below 2.2 hours known as the “cohesionless spin-barrier” cannot be merely held together by self-gravity, but must be formed of a contiguous solid, as they would fly apart otherwise.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets)
So I mean rocks which aren’t rumble piles.
But rumble piles are interesting space rocks.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“Small space rock can spin very fast.
Have you looked that them?”
–
Yes I have. And I have calculated the average surface temperature for some of them.
There is not the satellite measured average surface temperature for those celestial bodies, to make a comparison and to verify the calculations.
–
For planets and moons there are satellite measured the average Albedo, and the satellite measured the average surface temperature.
For planets and moons the formula works perfectly well.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thank you for your obduracy:
“When considering the planet or moon spin rate, we can do a comparison between the planet or moon spin rate and their respective average surface temperature.”
What happens when the spin rate is zero?
Willard,
“What happens when the spin rate is zero?”
What zero? The very much zero, the zero-zero mathematical abstraction?
–
The 0,00001 isn’t enough zero for you?
Because
(0,00001)^1/16 = 0,4869
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thank you for your inattentive question:
“What zero?”
The zero refers to the rate of spin.
An object that does not spin has a zero rate of spin.
Thank you again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Lets assume that Bordos butchered logic applies: anecdotes of massacres undermine democracy.
The Massacre of Glencoe. Some democracy.
The Eigg Massacre. Some democracy”.
blah…blah…
***
I was referring to a comment that the Iroquois had a democratic nation. I made no claim that feudal times in the UK were democratic. Our people (the Scots) suffered through it at a level far worse than any aboriginals suffered. And that was under a white regime.
Of course, wee willy is far too obtuse to get that.
> I was referring to a comment that the Iroquois had a democratic nation.
Yes, and you whiffed it.
Democracy has nothing to do with your usual racist talking points.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Iroquois didn’t have a democratic nation.
They actually did, more than 400 years earlier than Canada itself, and they still do.
Also, Kennui seems to forget that when Canada was formed, in 1867, only men who were 21y old or more were able to vote. They also needed to own property.
Perhaps he should look up the Indian Act of 1876 to see how cool it was.
The Iroquois were nothing more than savages. Many white people fit that description as well, so you can get off your soap box. The difference is we invented democracy and made it work while the Iroquois carried on ensuring no one had democracy.
> The Iroquois were nothing more than savages
As if this was disqualifying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Potential_proto-democratic_societies
It take some refinement for a society to be able to produce cranks such as Bordo and Kennui. Years of information warfare is required, be it by some Newscorp or other phantasmagorical outlets.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Lets assume that Bordos butchered logic applies: anecdotes of massacres undermine democracy.
The Massacre of Glencoe. Some democracy.
The Eigg Massacre. Some democracy”.
…..
***
I was referring to a comment that the Iroquois had a democratic nation. I made no claim that feudal times in the UK were democratic. Our people (the Scots) suffered through it at a level far worse than any aboriginals suffered. And that was under a white regime.
Of course, wee willy is far too obtuse to get that.
sorry about double post,,,there was a delay in the post and I thought it had disappeared, like so many others.
If only all your posts disappeared – this site would be so much better.
Yeah, sure…then it could be degraded into typical alarmist tripe.
studentb, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You must admit that studentb has a point.
Willard, please stop trolling.
yes, wee willy, stoopidb has a pointy head, just like yours.
Bordo can’t keep his sexism in check for the one day women get in a calendar year.
What an asshat.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In an earlier post, Tim S and Ark defended the pseudo-science of WSPR (Weak Signal Propagation Reporter) for use in finding the Malaysian airliner that disappeared over the ocean. I had presumed they were looking for remnants of communications signals on the day of the disappearance but it is even worse. They are looking for disturbances in data stored from a network of amateur radio data monitoring signals.
WSPR is an amateur radio tracker that tracks amateur radio signals in the global amateur radio network. It transmits using Frequency Shift Keying, which is a communications protocol in which the frequency of a carrier signal is shifted slightly in frequency. For example, in binary mode, using a 1 and a 0, the frequency might be shifted from 1000 hertz for a 1 to 1050 hertz for a 0.
That makes it immune to any interference from an aircraft. If that theory held up, then all radio/television signals would be prone to such interference and our TV receptions would be constantly affected by it.
In fact, Wiki claims, wrt to the Malyasian flight and WSPR, The validity of these methods and results is highly controversial. Thats being nice, Id say the theory is nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)
Reply
More BS, but not even humorous this time. I posted a competent link to a story that it was being INVESTIGATED as a possible clue to the plane. I did not endorse, “defend”, or do anything except to point out that your blanket dismissal is no more credible than anything else you post. The data exists in a database.
This guy says he analyzed it and found something. The theory is valid. That is not the question. The question is whether the data reveals anything useful in this case? The backstory seems to be that the airline and government are not in a big hurry to find the plane because it may show they are liable in some way.
Tim S
” More BS, but not even humorous this time. ”
Even a tiny bit less humourous is Robertson’s attempt in 2018 to teach engineer and scientist Peter Morcombe aka Gallopingcamel that he was pointlessly using Einstein’s theory when calculating the size of the magnets for a synchrotron he, Peter Morcombe, was helping to build!
Please follow the post sequence:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320188
Unimaginable.
To be more accurate, Cam and I were discussing time dilation and he claimed he had witnessed it in an experiment. I urged him to go back and take a closer look to see if it was time dilating or perhaps some other physical phenomenon.
After all, it’s hard for something to dilate when it’s not real. Even Einstein seemed confused, using kinematics while ignoring related forces and masses.
One of the bases of Einstein’s theory was a thought experiment in which a man is in a box. The box can be lifted and accelerated with a sky hook or accelerate downward under a gravitational field. Einstein seemed to think the guy could not tell the difference. Even though this is a typical force/mass problem, Einstein resorted to skipping the forces and masses and working directly with acceleration, a dangerous prospect when it is the basis of a thought experiment.
Using kinematics and thought experiments lead him to erroneous conclusions. Hey, that’s not just my theory, it is a theory expressed by Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock. He knew time is derived from the rotational period of the Earth, a fact that seemed to evade Einstein.
Don’t try to manipulate us, Robertson.
It is definitely visible that in 2018, you clearly first denied the necessity for an engineer building a synchrotron to compute the magnets’s power according to Einstein’s relativity rules.
You were brazen enough to claim that using Newton’s law would be sufficient!
Then came Peter Morcombe alias gallopingcamel and teached you, and after his explanations you gave up with your trash.
He perfectly debunked also your absolutely dûmb trash about the inexistence of time.
Even today you still can’t understand that GPS doesn’t work without considering both general and special relativity.
Tim, as usual, you are out of your element and commenting on matters you don’t understand. I explained why the signals being used cannot be interfered with by aircraft.
FM, frequency modulation, was invented because it is immune to spurious noise that can affect AM, amplitude modulation. In FM, they have a constant frequency carrier which is modulated by an audio signal so that the carrier frequency changes wrt to the audio. With AM, th signal amplitude varies and any noise signals will interfere with the signal.
It is the same with frequency shift keying, the modulation method used with the WSPR signal. In this case, the carrier is digitally modulated so it is only changing between two values. That makes it completely immune to disturbances from any aircraft flying through the signal.
Even Wiki claimed the theory is bs. What you have here is some yahoo manipulating data without understanding what the data means.
Are we playing poker. I will see your irrelevant comment and raise you one. In the early days of aviation, a system called ADF was developed. There is an instrument with a needle that points to the transmitting station that you select by its frequency. Any AM radio transmitter works. You can listen to the news and weather reports on your favorite station as you fly toward it. It has limited utility because it does not provide distance. It is only really useful if you are flying directly to the transmitter. You know you passed it when the needle suddenly flips backwards.
Closing in on Starship Flight 3 | Countdown to Launch LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT2Cu2YWKuU
{a long, long countdown by a bunch of space cadets}
Anyhow the plan is March 14 {with FAA, willing}.
If flight 3 doesn’t have many problems, then we expect 4 to happen fairly quickly {within 2 months}. And if 4 goes well, the 5 and 6 could be within month of each other. But that kind of wildly optimistic, but would be required, if getting 9 or more launches in 2024.
It seems if SpaceX moves this quickly, there will faster attempts with other launch companies, such as Blue Origin, which currently say they going test lunar landing in 2025. And be doing two of them before doing the lunar lander which contracted with NASA.
Or seems to me, Blue Origin, New Glenn with use these lunar landers as test payloads. Rather than perhaps a more expensive satellite launch. So test launching the rocket and test landing their lunar landers {and would guess the first lunar lander will land not in polar region, but rather safer and easier landing area on the Moon.
And if first gets within 100 km of where want to go, it’s successful test.
Or with Apollo, site selection was related to finding safer regions to land in and entire southern polar region wouldn’t be example of having any safe place to land.
If we are in a solar grand min, we can still send crew to Mars.
It will just need more shielding.
Starship could land 100 tons on Mars surface. Starship going to Mars with crew, are going to go in pairs, so they can spin to make artificial gravity, two could have +200 tons of payload to Mars which means you could bring a lot shielding tens of tons of water. And you don’t need to recycle water as much {and crew could take showers}.
And since you could land a lot payload, rather than dump waste water, you bring it to Mars surface {where it can continue to used for radiation shielding and at some point, recycled on Mars surface.
Since we don’t have long term testing of artificial gravity or Mars gravity. The first crew landing could be a small crew, which we stay a long time on the Mars surface. So could bring 6 and leave 3 on Mars surface. The three on the Mars surface, should have capability to run robotic mission send to Mars. And other 3 or more, return to Earth.
And returning to Earth, could use Venus as way to return to Earth or they stay in Mars orbit and have artificial gravity {which suggest could use 3 or more starships].
Whether use 3 or 6 starships, it’s a lot cheaper, NASA previous plans to send crew to Mars. But you could just use one Starship, 3 crew, no artificial gravity land on Mars surface, and have crew stay on Mars.
But that would be more of private mission to Mars, whereas NASA would want all kinds of back up options. Or once crew on in Mars orbit, you can pick from 6 crew, which 3 crew are going to surface of Mars {or abort that option}. And it seems the more Starship sent, the lower chance of aborting going to surface of Mars. And aborting it, has higher costs to tax payers, than sending a couple more Starships.
But Musk says want to mission to Mars [we can assume private] within near term {5 years} and NASA probably in next 6 year will be doing lunar exploration.
So if Musk wants to speed it up, he do the one or two Starship to Mars. So, NASA purpose is to explore Mars, and needs to pick sites, it wants explored. And Musk purpose could be how to get to Mars surface and live on Mars surface.
He could land crew on highest mountain of Mars {not a good site for Mars exploration] and test humans living on Mars for 3 or more years.
One lived in space that long, and you have live in space that long, to have settlements on Mars.
Nobody is going to mars
I saw a documentary on Mars where Matt Damon and a crew flew there. Matt got stranded and had to be rescued with a sky hook. All in all, I preferred him in the documentary series…The Bourne Identity.
People will going to the Moon in few years, and few years later, people could be going to Mars.
What going to happen in the next 5 year?
On Tuesday, a Starship might be launched, and it’s planned to crash into the ocean. The first stage in Gulf of Mexico and second stage in the Indian Ocean. And then the next Starship might launch probably +2 months from now. And what it does, will depend on what happened with the Tuesday Starship launch.
Weather looks ok for Tuesday {and better than it looked two days ago}.
Near end of 2024, Falcon Heavy will launch parts of the gateway lunar orbit station. And also near end year Falcon Heavy with launch the VIPER rover to Southern lunar polar region. Also called, the Artemis rover, as I posted above, and:
NOV 10
VIPER
Falcon Heavy
SpaceX
LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center
Florida, United States
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
But of course it could be delayed {they usually are}.
And nobody giving a date for either of two Gateway components- other than in later part of 2024, and these probably have better chance of being delayed {as are expensive and complicated}.
Also Intuitive Machines going launch their second lander IM-2
hopeful before end of year. And I pretty sure they will remember to take off the safety of their laser range finders.
Then in 2025, there will crew launch from SLS rocket, in which crew will go around the Moon. And later SLS [it could be 2 more years] it launch crew which will transfer to the starship lunar lander, which will bring them to lunar surface and return them back lunar orbit and transfer back to spacecraft which returns crew to Earth surface.
Before this, there will be lunar Starship which test lands on lunar surface {with cargo- no crew] and also New Glenn rocket will send test landing on lunar surface with vehicle which do same thing, get crew in lunar orbit, land them on lunar surface, and return to lunar orbit, to transferred back.
But sometime in beginning of 2025 New Glenn going first, land couple lunar robotic rovers on the Moon, And after that, will test the crew landing vehicle, and then after that real deal using it to transfer crew.
So Mars mission might happen in time when Starship landed two crew missions on the Moon and New Glenn rocket done one crew landing on the Moon.
Or after Gateway station is operating. Also other nations are also planning to send crew to Moon and robotic missions to Moon.
And also going to do Dear Moon {Japanese billionaire and 8 others} before going to Mars.
And double or tripe amount starlink satellites, and hopeful get started launching Starship and/or other rocket from ocean.
So in five years, we could have about dozen people who landed on the Moon. Could have 3 new space stations [2 added to LEO and 1 lunar orbit]. Could have some idea about water in the Moon, and therefore plans/start up ventures to mine the lunar water.
It seems one way, to delaying sending crew to Mars, is finding a lot more lunar water, than anyone expects.
An important part of this, is we going to have companies which making robotic missions, and they are a lot cheaper. Not only in in US, but all over the world, India, Japan, and China.
And lunar polar region is quite a small region.
And Mars is vast region to explore. And if you have crew on Mars, there is not the speed of light delay time for these robotic missions.
UK government to invest 10 million in Saxavord spaceport
March 7, 2024 9:45 am Robert Zimmerman
“The government of the United Kingdom announced yesterday that it will directly invest 10 million in the Saxavord spaceport being built on one of the Shetland Islands, as shown on the map to the right.”
…
“Meanwhile, the other spaceport in Sutherland must be wondering if it can get similar government aid, or if the government is now playing favorites.”
https://behindtheblack.com/
I am trying figure why so many in Sutherland.
Mainly cause I think the UK [and commonwealth] has so many places, I would put a spaceport.
Stratolaunchs air-launched test vehicle goes supersonic in its first powered flight
by Alan Boyle on March 9, 2024 at 5:56 pm
While I cant share the specific altitude and speed TA-1 reached due to proprietary agreements with our customers, we are pleased to share that in addition to meeting all primary and customer objectives of the flight, we reached high supersonic speeds approaching Mach 5 and collected a great amount of data at an incredible value to our customers,
https://www.geekwire.com/2024/stratolaunch-test-vehicle-supersonic-powered-flight/
linked from: https://cosmiclog.com/
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-performs-first-powered-talon-flight/
Has movie of drop and start it’s acceleration.
https://vimeo.com/921592118
Sun doesn’t emit any solar rays.
What sun emits is the EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&sl=el&tl=en&text=%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1&op=translate
That’s right, and EM contains no heat. Therefore no heat can be transferred, as heat, from the Sun to Earth.
old heat -> Em -> new heat
32 Climate shysters Predictions Proven False
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw
I just watched the video to the first prediction, which came to be true because some dude jumped off of a ship and swam to the north pole.
The NP is known for certain brief periods where temps can rise to 0C during winter. The rest of the Arctic Ocean remains frozen under 10 feet of ice.
Remember, water does not get much below 0C due to its propensity to turn into ice at that temperature. Arctic ice move around with wind and ocean currents and those wind currents could conceivably bring warmer temps to the NP for a brief period.
Hey, Gordo, sea-water freezes at about -2 C because of it’s salt content. The “NP” (North Pacific?) is not the Arctic Ocean, which exhibits somewhat less salt. Because of recent warming, there is much less sea-ice at the end of the melt season, but the coverage in March exhibits little change compared to the average over the satellite record. As a result, there is now a large fraction of thinner, first year sea-ice at the end of the freeze season.
In the North Pacific, there is a current which flows northward in the Western Pacific that provides warmer waters at higher latitudes, much like the Gulf Stream. Both are wind driven Western Boundary Currents. There is a return flow of colder waters along the west coast of North America.
Gordo never learns, he just keeps on mindlessly pontificating.
ES,
You wrote –
“Both are wind driven ”
Nonsense. Surface winds cannot and do not drive deep ocean currents – particularly those that are above others running in different directions.
Currents in the oceans are driven by convection.
You may have been misled by ignorant people at organisations like NOAA.
Flynnson, Who said anything about deep currents? I was writing about surface currents, which determine the surface temperatures and influence weather patterns. They are a major part of the connections between the atmosphere and the oceans.
Good one, Eben. We need to pass laws preventing outright liars from manipulating people re climate change. They are all liars. What they are doing is akin to yelling “Fire!!!” in a crowded venue.
Good idea, Bordo.
Let’s start with Sky Dragon cranks.
And if there is a fire, what do you yell?
EM,
I advocate unrestricted free speech. People at a crowded venue should think about what to do in case of a life-threatening emergency – maybe in case somebody shouts “Fire!”.
I suppose in these enlightened days, if you see a fire in a crowded venue, you keep your mouth shut (wouldnt want to alarm, upset or annoy anybody, would you), and calmly walk away, have a stiff drink or two to calm your nerves, and post a suitable comment to the social media of your choice.
Other people dying is not your concern, is it? It’s a strange world.
When theres a fire you throw books on it.
Little Willy, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
studentb,
“Secondly
every mathematical formula has its limitations.
OK, what are the limits to your formula?
i.e. at what value for N does it break down?
Tell us please.”
–
Well, it is the [ X1 ≤ (β*N*cp)^1/16 ≤ X2 ].
since (β) is constant, the average surface (cp) is known for a planet,
I think (N) gets limited somewhere between (0,01 ≤ N ≤ 5)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…stoopidb just makes stoopid comments, he does not understand science or math.
Concerning your posts – not only stoopid but also of incredible arrogance, Robertson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320188
Look at the absolutely immeasurable stoopidity of your technically incompetent replies to the REAL engineer Peter Morcombe aka galloping camel.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
76
“76”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
86.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Planet……Te……Te.correct….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury….440 K……364 K……..325,83 K..340 K
Earth…255 K……210 K……..287,74 K..288 K
Moon..270,4 K….224 K……..223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars.210 K……174 K……..213,11 K..210 K
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos 7:46 am, your equation is still off by 33+C by ignoring the IR opacity of Earths current atm. since satellites actually measure a global annualized brightness temperature of 255K.
Wrong Ball4. The “brightness temperature” is NOT the surface temperature.
The surface temperature (average) is around 288K. The “255K” is nonsense. It has NO relation to reality.
It’s easy to predict you will STILL not understand. You just make up nonsense you can’t support, like the rest of your cult.
Clint R actually gets something physically correct commenting: “The “brightness temperature” is NOT the surface temperature.”
Good job, Clint. Satellite radiometers measure the earth system brightness temperature NOT at the surface but at the height of their orbit. Global 288K brightness temperature from thermometers at surface – 255K brightness temperature from radiometers on orbit = 33K.
So, Christos work is off nature’s measured reality by 33K when supported by actual observation.
Sorry Ball4, but that’s STILL wrong. Satellites do not measure “brightness temperature”. “Brightness temperature” refers to the calculated value from an imaginary sphere.
Earth’s surface averages about 288K. THAT is reality. Comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere is anti-science.
You won’t be able to understand, as usual. But continuing to claim satellites can measure brightness temperature moves you from incompetence to dishonesty. Both of which I predict you will continue to demonstrate.
Prove me wrong.
The top post proves you wrong Clint R.
Those are all brightness (or radiance) temperatures, none are kinetic thermometer temperatures. Black body radiation does exist & can be measured. The earth system is NOT imaginary.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“So, Christos work is off natures measured reality by 33K when supported by actual observation.”
–
***
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earths mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288K -255K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your 0.47 fudge factor Φ is arrived at by matching Earth WITH atmosphere to global thermometer 288K & ignoring the IR opacity of the existing atm.
Thus Christos is off by 33K when using Φ to calculate “the planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.”
In reality, thermometer measurement = 288K
and satellite radiometers in orbit measurement = 255K
Calibrated observations (not calculations) show 288K 255K = 33K.
Ball4: The top post proves you wrong Clint R.
The top post is UAH satellite temperatures, which are NOT 255K, which proves me right.
B4: Those are all brightness (or radiance) temperatures, none are kinetic thermometer temperatures.
True, but irrelevant, as in grasping for straws….
B4: Black body radiation does exist & can be measured.
You can’t measure something from an imaginary object. You must calculate.
B4: The earth system is NOT imaginary.
Correct, that’s why it makes no sense to compare Earth to an imaginary object.
I’m not going to waste any more time with Ball4. He will be here all day. I occasionally take the time to debunk him. And, that’s been done here, again.
The top post UAH satellite brightness temperatures are NOT 255K, because they are LT! As stated right up front. Clint is still wrong & satellites measure 255K on orbit looking at the real Earth not an imaginary body.
Clint R obviously doesn’t know how black body radiation is emitted from real objects & measured because Clint is humorously not accomplished in the relevant physics.
Instead of whining, Clint should accomplish reading & understanding experimental physics.
Keep proving me right, Ball4.
I can take it.
Correcting the Effective temperature (Te) formula:
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)
It is well known and it is long established that there is the planets and moons surface’s the incident SW solar light the diffuse reflection. And that SW solar light the diffuse reflection is what actually being the satellite measured reflection.
What is New is that the smooth surface planets and moons reflect the incident SW solar light not only diffuselly, but the smooth surface planets and moons also have a very strong specular reflection.
The smooth surface planets and moons specular reflection should be necessarily considered in the planets’ and moons’ “Energy in” estimation, because otherwise the Planet Energy Income will be very much overestimated.
We insert the
Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient).
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons
Φ =1 for heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons
Te.correct = [Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (2)
Te.correct, for the smooth surface planets and moons, has a much lower, than Te, numerical values.
The smooth surface planets and moons –
Mercury, Te =440K, Te.correct =364K
Moon, Te =270,4K, Te.correct =224K
Mars, Te =210K, Te.correct =174K
Earth, Te =255K, Te.correct =210K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, satellite measured solar light reflection is in band 0.3 to 5 micron so those measurements do include specular reflection in that band; the satellite radiometers do not wear polarized sunglasses to reduce or eliminate specular reflection.
Christos Te.correct is thus meaningless but Christos’ earthen Te=255K brightness temperature is correct as measured by satellite radiometers. The difference from surface thermometer 288K is thus measured at 33K.
I think Christos is now realizing the error of his ways.
It sure does take some time to educate some people.
But, then again, there are some people in armchairs here who cannot be educated.
“It sure does take some time to educate some people.”
studentb, please stop trolling.
Sorry.
Did I upset you?
Did I use words you cannot understand?
Words like “educate” ?
“Did I use words you cannot understand?”
studentb, please stop trolling.
An energy expansion, rather than an energy transition.
p.s.: don’t tell mom I work on the rigs. She thinks I’m a piano player in a whorehouse.
Many people are confused about the term “Peak Oil”. I’ve been doing some remedial reading lately: Daniel Yergin’s book “The Quest” published in 2011. He describes the energy world up to 2011 and includes a mention of Peak Oil, but he gets it wrong, IMHO, as he considers only peak production volume. The oil industry is in a race to continually add “resources” to the known quantity of “reserves” available and it’s becoming ever more difficult to add resources at a rate above that removed from the reserves.
But, those sorts of calculations are based on the economic calculations of the Return on Investment (ROI). It’s not about running out of oil, it’s about running out of cheap oil. There’s not much $10/bbl oil out there or $25/bbl oil or even $50/bbl stuff. But, from a thermodynamic point of view, it’s really about Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI), that is, the amount of energy which can be supplied to consumers from total production. Long before some peak in total production is hit, the difference between that pulled out of the ground and that which the consumers outside the oil industry sees will begin to narrow, eventually hitting some point low enough that the prices at the pump would become greater then today’s average consumer can pay for.
As this situation becomes ever worse, our oil addicted economy will surely be forced to change radically and do so rather rapidly, given the fact that the problem is global. Advanced countries, such as the US, may be able to adapt to such changes by switching from oil to natural gas, renewables or even burning more coal to switch to an electric transport system. Then the known problems of electric cars come into play and burning still more fossil fuels won’t help with AGW.
Worse, the transition needs to get going well long before any real Peak Oil arrives. All the while, the world’s population is still increasing with a greater increase in the fraction using oil for transport. Here in the US, a large fraction of the population has no clue about any of this and one political party demands ever greater production of oil and other fossil fuels, which means continuing with the illusion of oil supplies for ever.
Sad so say, after more than 50 years of following these problems, the future looks rather grim to me.
Many people are confused about the term Peak Oil. Ive been doing some remedial reading lately: Daniel Yergins book The Quest published in 2011. He describes the energy world up to 2011 and includes a mention of Peak Oil, but he gets it wrong, IMHO, as he considers only peak production volume. The oil industry is in a race to continually add resources to the known quantity of reserves available and its becoming ever more difficult to add resources at a rate above that removed from the reserves.
But, those sorts of calculations are based on the economic calculations of the Return on Investment (ROI). Its not about running out of oil, its about running out of cheap oil. Theres not much $10/bbl oil out there or $25/bbl oil or even $50/bbl stuff. But, from a thermodynamic point of view, its really about Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI), that is, the amount of energy which can be supplied to consumers from total production. Long before some peak in total production is hit, the difference between that pulled out of the ground and that which the consumers outside the oil industry sees will begin to narrow, eventually hitting some point low enough that the prices at the pump would become greater then todays average consumer can pay for.
As this situation becomes ever worse, our oil addicted economy will surely be forced to change radically and do so rather rapidly, given the fact that the problem is global. Advanced countries, such as the US, may be able to adapt to such changes by switching from oil to natural gas, renewables or even burning more coal to switch to an electric transport system. Then the known problems of electric cars come into play and burning still more fossil fuels wont help with AGW. Worse, the transition needs to get going well long before any real Peak Oil arrives.
All the while, the worlds population is still increasing with a greater increase in the fraction using oil for transport. Here in the US, a large fraction of the population has no clue about any of this and one political party demands ever greater production of oil and other fossil fuels, which means continuing with the illusion thatf oil supplies will last for ever.
Sad so say, after more than 50 years of following these problems, the future looks rather grim to me.
Swanson, are you panicking again?
Some people were spouting such nonsense 50 years ago, yet I filled up my tank today. That will provide another 450 miles of adding beneficial plant food to the atmosphere. Drill, baby, drill!
You can live in fear, or you can face reality, your choice….
Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –
How can a trace gas be plant food?
Whenever you’re ready to share your Skies-Shooting-Cold-Rays theory,
Child, you have an out-of-control imagination.
Puffman,
That you are a sock puppet who got banned multiple times is no imagination.
Child, you still have an out-of-control imagination.
“How can a trace gas be plant food?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
No imagination needed, Pufferman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387866
That was five years ago
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
A couple of points.
You wrote –
“Puffman, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy”
You’ve changed Dr Spencer’s quote just a tad, haven’t you? Are you lying, or just trying to be too clever by half? The contents of your fantasy are not fact.I can understand why you are not using Dr Spencer’s exact words – you cannot accept reality.
The other point is that your repetitive attempts to bend Dr Spencer to your will don’t seem to be having any effect. What particular form of insanity is involved with doing the same thing over and over, and hoping for a different outcome?
Just accept the reality that you are both incompetent and impotent. You can’t even say what your mythical GHE is supposed to do, can you?
What a strange individual you are!
Silly willy has to resort to dishonesty since he has no science.
Wiltard’s philosophy is the philosophy of Pride, Envy, Anger, and Sloth.
Troglodyte will defend anyone who helps his quest for Lower Taxes for people richer than him:
https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-suggests-donald-trump-has-been-bought-1877583
Wonky Wee Willy,
Does your “philosophy” include passing off your fantasies as quotes by Dr Spencer?
Are you really silly enough to believe that you won’t get caught out?
This is the sort of thing that would get you referred to as “a lying dog” by a fanatical GHE cultist – but not by me, of course. I’m far too polite.
By the way, who does your fantasy think I am today?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
I have no read what you just wrote.
What are you braying about?
Whining Wee Willy,
You gibbered “I have no read what you just wrote.”
I have no idea what that means, but I’ll repeat anyway –
Wonky Wee Willy,
Does your “philosophy” include passing off your fantasies as quotes by Dr Spencer?
Are you really silly enough to believe that you wont get caught out?
This is the sort of thing that would get you referred to as “a lying dog” by a fanatical GHE cultist but not by me, of course. Im far too polite.
By the way, who does your fantasy think I am today?
[chortle]
Sorry, Mike, I skipped your comment again.
What were you braying about?
E. Swanson,
The oil business has been, and always will be, driven by two constraints: opportunity and capital. Sometimes you have plenty of opportunities but no capital to develop those opportunities; other times you have access to more than enough capital but opportunities are scarce. Venezuela is a good example of the former; opportunity rich but capital constrained.
I like to paraphrase Peter Tertzakian, “to say that the world economy is addicted to oil is like saying that the human body is addicted to blood.” It emphasizes the crucial role that oil plays in powering the global economy, similar to how blood is vital for sustaining the human body.
For me, the future looks bright vis a vis an energy expansion. All natural resources eventually run out, even the sun has a finite lifespan. It is important to keep exploring sustainable and renewable alternatives to ensure the long-term viability of our energy sources.
US makes the most oil and consumes the most oil [makes as much
as it consume- it used to, import about 1/2 oil it makes.
The next largest oil producer, hardly uses most it’s oil produced and exports most of it.
And China doesn’t produce a lot, and consume 4/5 of what US consumes,
or ls second largest consumer in the world. India consume about 1/5th of US, and doesn’t produce much oil. And India is 3rd largest consumer of oil.
So Russia 3rd largest producer, and fourth largest consumer of oil
Saudi Arabia is second largest oil producer and 6th largest consumer of oil. And it long had very cheap oil production cost {but I don’t if that still the case}. But used to be about $2 per barrel.
US has more than 100 year supply, and US crash oil to around $20 per barrel, but that inhibited future oil exploration and was unstable or desirable.
And Russia was in price war, up to around $20 per barrel- suggest that Russia oil extraction cost, though not $2 per barrel, probably around $30 to $40 per barrel or cheaper. Canada oil sand oil is pretty expensive, more than say $50 per barrel.
Or like Venezuela oil, it’s not good quality oil or similarly, the processing of it was expensive. And there a lot Canadian or Venezuela or hard to process oil. Of course main factor with Venezuela is defective/criminal government.
Anyhow, I don’t think Russia is running out of oil, and US certainly isn’t.
Peak oil came and went many years ago. It was the time when demand for crude oil exceeded the ability to physically pump free liquid out of the ground, not market manipulation of supply.
Fracking changed the definition of peak oil. Now, it is a completely open question. Free liquid is no longer needed. The fracking process literally squeezes the oil and natural gas out of the shale rock. After a well is made using sideways drilling (the drill bit is turned sideways at depth), a heavy mixture of mud and water is pumped in at extremely high pressure. Tar sands are also in play now, but that requires strip mining.
Tim S
Is there a current, independent study on the impact of fracking activities on very long-term groundwater quality?
I remember very clearly previous reports, over 15 years old, of lawsuits involving landowners in Pennsylvania and Texas that were very, very quickly hushed up.
The concerns with fracking include water quality, local earth quakes due to the disruption of the rock, and drilling mud evaporation ponds that contain hydrocarbons that also evaporate. The primary water quality issue is managed by the integrity of the well casing.
There is a three-way conflict between consumer advocates, environmentalists, and safety advocates which includes unions. The consumer advocates say drill baby drill and keep the refineries running to maintain supply and lower cost. The green people just want to shut everything down. Greens are perfectly happy with high prices.
The safety organizations (EPA, CSB, OSHA, etc.) and their union supporters (the folks on the line who get hurt if things go wrong) want the drillers and refineries to proceed carefully, but continue production to keep those good paying jobs intact.
If there is a problem, the safety people say shut it down and fix it, while the consumer groups and politicians cry foul with claims of market manipulation. The claim is that they take turns making unplanned maintenance shut downs to keep the supply low and the price high. My contacts claim that shut down decisions are make by the line workers and maintenance, not management. Managers are very reluctant to overrule a safety decision my the line operators who have union protection.
Yeah.
It almost seems they have zero faith in the EPA.
But then again, they shouldn’t.
Tim S, Fracking did usher in another boom period in oil production but did not change the ERoEI equation. Fracking requires considerable effort and energy to drill the horizontal wells and frack them. The resulting wells initially produce at a large rate, but the flow declines much more quickly than those using conventional drilling techniques which can continue to produce for many years.
I’ve seen some comments which suggest that the Bakken oil formation, the first area of intense development, may be exhibiting declining production. The usual logic, AIUI, is that the best prospects are drilled first, leaving the dregs for later. The Permian basin in west Texas has become another important area in more recent years.
The US is estimated to have 2 trillion barrels of shale oil plus or minus a few hundred billion barrels. There is much more world-wide. It is still an open question how much is actually accessible, but fracking eliminates the need for strip mining. There is still plenty of time to develop the necessary breeder reactor technology for the electric economy to make sense. The concept of storing solar panel energy in a battery in your garage to then charge your car seems rather silly to me. Batteries are not cheap and they have a limited useful life. Solar panels degrade of time due to thermal cycling and eventually have to be replaced.
Tom S., One must be careful when discussing “reserves”. As I recall, there’s “proven reserves” and “recoverable reserves”, the latter being tied to the cost of recovery. There will always be oil in the ground for those who can pay for it. Then, too, one must also consider the environmental costs, including the long term effects of climate change, which, as we know, are difficult to quantify. As for batteries, comparing their costs in a system against fossil fuels is likely to lose, because fossil fuels are already stored at no “cost”. Also, for batteries, the materials within them are recyclable.
We know that breeder reactors can work, but the cost of recycling the fuel, including waste storage, must also be included. So far, after more than 50 years o promises, the US has no actual operational storage for high level waste.
Tom S., One must be careful when discussing “reserves”. As I recall, there’s “proven reserves” and “recoverable reserves”, the latter being tied to the cost of recovery. There will always be oil in the ground for those who can pay for it. Then, too, one must also consider the environmental costs, including the long term effects of climate change, which, as we know, are difficult to quantify. As for batteries, comparing their costs in a system against fossil fuels is likely to lose, because fossil fuels are already stored at no “cost”. Also, for batteries, the materials within them are recyclable.
We know that breeder reactors can work, but the cost of recycling the fuel, including waste storage, must also be included. So far, after more than 50 years o promises, the US has no actual operational storage for high level waste.
I used the word “estimated”. Have fun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
Here’s Ball4’s explanation of why the world cooled for four and a half billion years, but has now decided to heat up due to a “GHE” (complete comment) –
“There is a GHE once greenhouses were built. Obviously Swenson is the commenter dreaming there is no GHE.”
Heat the planet. Build a greenhouse.
Sounds delusional to me.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In a drastic attempt to protect their beachfront homes, residents in Salisbury, Massachusetts, invested $500,000 in a sand dune to defend against encroaching tides. After being completed last week, the barrier made from 14,000 tons of sand lasted just 72 hours before it was completely washed away, according to WCVB. “We got hit with three stormstwo in January, one nowat the highest astronomical tides possible,” Rick Rigoli, who oversaw the dune project, told the station. Ron Guilmette, whose tennis court was destroyed in previous storms along the beach, added that he now doesn’t know how much his property is worth or if he will stay in the area.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dollar500k-dune-designed-to-protect-massachusetts-homes-last-just-3-days
This demonstrates the mentality of climate alarmists. They build a sand due to protect from the ocean, forgetting about the wind.
Duh!!!
It rather demonstrates the level of denial displayed daily by our beloved contrarians and cranks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Hey, Gordo, sea-water freezes at about -2 C because of its salt content. The NP (North Pacific?) is not the Arctic Ocean…”
***
Swannie…NP is North Pole and last time I looked it was under the Arctic Ocean. Mind you, some alarmist might have moved it.
It is not unexpected to see temps at the NP suddenly rise to 0C temporarily from temps as low as -60C. Who knows why but I’ll bet its related to the circulating winds and ocean currents. Those same effects move the ice around unpredictably and dump tons of it into the North Atlantic.
That’s why I laugh at the alarmist notion that the Arctic Ocean will be navigable in the near future. It’s so unpredictable, even in the brief Arctic summer that it would not be worth anyone’s while to take a chance on it.
Until we have a means of changing the Earth’s orbital path and axial tilt, it will be the same old, same old for the foreseeable future.
wee willy…”…in recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred independently in the Near East, the Indian subcontinent, and elsewhere before this”.
***
Another Homer Simpson, “Doh!!!”moment.
The Brits introduced democracy to the India and the near east when they took over those regions for a while. Same thing in North America. The Brits took the continent from the Spanish and French otherwise the aboriginals would have been decimated. It was the Brits who introduced democracy here and other European nations supported it via immigration.
People can argue that it was Brits who broke away from Brit home-rule who introduced democracy here but they were Brits by DNA all the same.
Now we have ijits, calling themselves scholars, claiming India and the Far East somehow developed democracy. What a load of plonk artists. Seriously, the ijits are re-writing history and teaching kids garbage.
> The Brits introduced democracy to the India
Wow:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians
Just wow.
What a great Krishnamurti scholar of Scottish descent we have here.
“Although the Mughal Empire was created and sustained by military warfare, it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule; rather it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule The base of the empire’s collective wealth was agricultural taxes, instituted by the third Mughal emperor, Akbar. These taxes, which amounted to well over half the output of a peasant cultivator, were paid in the well-regulated silver currency, and caused peasants and artisans to enter larger markets.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
We live in the best of times.
{Yes, maybe hard to believe}
And most of the people in world believe in one God.
I guess you could say people have always believed in a or one God,
and now, there is more agreement. Same applies to Mughal empire, more agreement the one God.
Though one could focus on all the disagreement about one God.
One thing about it, is the agreement about Heaven.
And I would point out, that heaven, is up.
And I think we should explore, Space.
One could say in terms Mughal empire, they did explore Space.
Three wise man following that star {and a lot more that, but it’s
clue}.
One could say we got a lot further along in space exploration.
“Just wow.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
gb follows a long tradition:
A democratic process, no doubt.
Not enough funding.
30 trillion in debt, and still not enough funding.
Mughal Empire collapsed because of corruption- not because the “rulers” didn’t have enough money.
The problem with public education is the lack of choice, not the amount of funding.
The problem with corporations, is likewise the lack of choice.
As is the problem with politicians- that lack of choice, not the lack of funding.
Since you like corporations so much, wait until you read about what the East India Company did.
A corporation is an organizationusually a group of people or a companyauthorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity recognized by private and public law as “born out of statute”; a legal person in a legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e., by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. Corporations come in many different types but are usually divided by the law of the jurisdiction where they are chartered based on two aspects: whether they can issue stock, or whether they are formed to make a profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Well, corporations are kind of Lefty idea.
And I say I am a true lefty.
Do I like them?
Hmm. Not normally. I think maybe they should have expiration date.
But many like them because they don’t.
But I am fond of my idea.
I did not know you were a bot, gb.
That explains it.
If I was a bot, I wouldn’t have to type.
Well, someday I will be a bot, and maybe they will get around to doing Willard, also.
Willard says:
”Since you like corporations so much, wait until you read about what the East India Company did.”
What corporations do is what any mob of people in a political party, corporation, academia, institutions, etc. will do when they decide they need to tell people what is best for them.
There is no way to distinguish between science and political science coming from any source without actually being able to experimentally confirm the answer. buyer beware.
Gill goes for a silly NO U to defend the East India Company, which was basically the Wagner Group of its time:
https://www.britannica.com/story/5-fast-facts-about-the-east-india-company
Our two Freedom Fighters will appreciate the emphasized bit.
1880 for the next 3.5 decades was ear-marked by global cooling also. That brings drought, crop failures and more.
Exactly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
What’s a few million deaths between trading pardners?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There are also the coal deposits.
Just two days ago, we ran a story here at Weatherzone with the headline “Colossal rainfall over the Nullarbor”, and again, extremely heavy rain has fallen over the Nullarbor Plain in Western Australia.
The heaviest falls continue to be recorded in southeastern WA in the area centred around Eyre weather station on WA’s southern coast approximately 300 km east of the SA Border.
Since the deluge began late last week, the Eyre weather station, located at the Eyre Bird Observatory, has now seen:
11 mm in the 24 hours to 9 am Saturday
141.2 mm in the 24 hours to 9 am Sunday
43.8 mm in the 24 hours to 9 am Monday
129 mm in the 24 hours to 9 am Tuesday That makes a running total of 325 mm in the 96 hours ending at 9 am Tuesday, which has absolutely decimated their record for the heaviest rainfall in any single month, which was 203.8 mm in March 1912.
Incredibly, it also means that Eyre has exceeded its annual rainfall average within four days, having registered 325mm from this event so far. Its average annual rainfall is 315.9mm.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australias-largest-sheep-station-underwater/1847437?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240312_news_australias-largest-sheep-station-underwater&fbclid=IwAR0tPcTSDf8S9RT9hCdskoavvWbHnK_nJLDGRqrBQoNmUod4xc3jInwS–A
Interesting.
Ball4,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1644308
“Christos Te.correct is thus meaningless but Christos earthen Te=255K brightness temperature is correct as measured by satellite radiometers. The difference from surface thermometer 288K is thus measured at 33K.”
–
So many corrections should be made in those only two sentences.
Please, let’s start correcting the obvious mistakes first.
1). The difference cannot be measured. Difference can only be calculated.
2). Satellite radiometers have other, more important things to do, besides the “brightness” temperature measurement. What is this, btw, what is this the “brightness” temperature?
3). Another, very big mistake – “surface thermometer 288K ” when surface thermometer was 288K?
Who told you the “surface thermometer 288K” ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1) The difference really is measured by thermometer field 288K at surface and 255K observed from precision, calibrated CERES instruments observing the earth system from orbit and calculated similar to Christos’ useful method of subtraction.
For Christos’ calculations to be meaningful, they must result in a reasonably close match to observation. Currently, Christos calculations are off by some 33C. In part, this is because Christos ignores the IR opacity of the current atm.
2) Good question Christos. The brightness temperature of an object is from an instrument that can measure radiant power over some range of frequencies anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum such as an IR thermometer. A brightness temperature always exists because the integral of the Planck function over any range of frequencies is always positive. This is not to be confused with thermometer kinetic temperature.
3) My 288K is rounded from global surface thermometer readings. Who told me? For the latest reading see: https://temperature.global/
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“3) My 288K is rounded from global surface thermometer readings. Who told me? For the latest reading see: https://temperature.global/ ”
–
Well, thank you, Ball4.
I visited the site you provided:
”
Previous Years
The recorded global temperature for previous years:
2015 average: 0.98 F (0.54 C) below normal
2016 average: 0.48 F (0.27 C) below normal
2017 average: 0.47 F (0.26 C) below normal
2018 average: 1.33 F (0.74 C) below normal
2019 average: 0.65 F (0.36 C) below normal
2020 average: 0.00 F (0.00 C) below normal
2021 average: 0.20 F (0.11 C) below normal
2022 average: 0.47 F (0.26 C) below normal
2023 average: 0.44 F (0.24 C) above normal ”
–
I do not see they mention about the thermometer surface 288K…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, scroll to “about”, “data sources”, and “our process”. Convert degrees F to degrees K.
Ball4,
“Christos, scroll to about, data sources, and our process. Convert degrees F to degrees K.”
–
Sorry, Ball4, now you ask me to scroll…
Also I should to convert degrees F to degrees K…
–
You still have nothing, because the 288K is not the kinetic thermometer field measurement, because it is impossible.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4, please provide a valuable source, which would say that 288K is the field thermometers measured Earth’s Global temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Already did. Learn more about it Christos.
Sorry, Ball4, but you asked me to scroll
Also you asked me to convert degrees F to degrees K
–
Now you tell me to learn more about it…
–
Ball4, please provide a valuable source, which would say that 288K is the field thermometers measured Earths Global temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://temperature.global/
Try somewhat harder to dig in & learn that resource is “a valuable source, which would say that 288K is the field thermometers measured Earths Global temperature.”, rounded.
There are a few other sources; this one has the advantage of being unadjusted.
“Try somewhat harder to dig in & learn that resource is “a valuable source, ”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
It says :
“Average (Jan 2015-Feb 2024): -0.252C
Source: Temperature.Global
Data: NOAA global METARs 2015-current
NDBC global buoy reports 2015-current
MADIS Mesonet Data, NOAA OMOs
https://temperature.global
But not a word about 288K, why?
You know why? Because it is a satellite measured earthern average temperature 288K !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Satellites are capable but do not report the global air temperature ~4′ above earthen surface Christos. For example, top post reports brightness temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere (LT).
To report the 288K surface air kinetic temperature, there are more useful non-satellite data sources in the list you copied.
The 288K is not surface air kinetic temperature.
288K is the satellite measured global temperature.
–
Satellites do not measure air kinetic temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Satellites do not report air brightness temperature 4′ above ground level, Christos. Top post is lower troposphere brightness temperature, for example.
Ball4,
“Satellites do not report air brightness temperature 4′ above ground level, Christos.”
Completely meaningless.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
“Christos Te.correct is thus meaningless…”
–
Why it is meaningless? Please explain.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As I already explained, Christos eqn. for Te.correct is meaningless because the eqn. ignores the earthen IR opacity and, furthermore, Christos incorrectly presumes SW specular reflection is outside the 0.3 to 5.0 micron band thus not measured by satellites:
“satellite measured solar light reflection is in band 0.3 to 5 micron so those measurements do include specular reflection in that band; the satellite radiometers do not wear polarized sunglasses to reduce or eliminate specular reflection.”
“Christos incorrectly presumes SW specular reflection is outside the 0.3 to 5.0 micron band thus not measured by satellites…”
–
No, my research is not about solar irradiation EM energy bands.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Solar irradiance is research on incoming SW.
SW outgoing reflection has the EM energy bands incorrectly included in Christos’ research.
Ball4, Ido not calculate the outgoing SW, I calculate the incoming SW.
The incomming SW is what EM energy interacting with planetary surface matter.
The ooutgoing SW EM energy doesn’t interact with planetary surface matter.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote 5/5 6:16 am: “we have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.”
so Christos already told us he does calculate the outgoing SW differently than the instrumentally measured outgoing SW. Christos should instead just use the measured outgoing SW.
“Christos should instead just use the measured outgoing SW.”
–
Exactly what I did. I used the measured outgoing diffuse reflection Albedo a =0,306.
But I needed the not reflection portion, I needed what was not reflected.
So I had to estimate also the specularly reflected part, which is not measured.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So now Christos changes to: yes, Christos does calculate the outgoing SW. But incorrectly calculated by Christos since the specular reflection is in the SW band 0.3 to 5.0 micron measured by satellite.
Ball4,
Specular reflection applies to all wavelengths of light. Look at the definition “Specular reflection, or regular reflection, is the mirror-like reflection of waves, such as light, from a surface.” – Wikipedia, but close enough.
You have fooled yourself – as usual.
There is no GHE, and your bizarre statement that “global warming” is due to building greenhouses shows that you are quite mad.
The average surface temperature of Earth is calculated by collecting temperature data from various locations across the globe and averaging them together. This includes data from land-based weather stations, ocean buoys, and satellite measurements.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/calculate-the-average-surface-temperature-of-earth.861691/
What Makes Birds So Smart?
This Raven understands Arkemedes’ principle better than many humans: https://youtube.com/shorts/88pZNj-DK40
Now, here’s the scientific explanation: https://tinyurl.com/Why-birds-are-smart
Yay science!
Arkady,
Obviously smarter than some peanuts at the National Science Foundation who wrote “melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns.”
After rejecting reality and Archimedes’ principle for some years, even the National Science Foundation saw the error of their ways, and wrote “[Editor’s note: An inaccurate statement about sea ice and rising sea levels has been deleted. We regret the error.]”
Oh well, I don’t blame the raven for mis-spelling Archimedes. It might be owned by a GHE cultist, whose knowledge of spelling is on par with their knowledge of physics.
Yes Ark, like Swenson I noticed your creative spelling of “Archimedes”. Clever.
But, you have to be careful with examples like the raven using pebbles to get a drink. Was the bird taught that? Many birds are great at mimicking. Teach them and they will remember. Being able to learn is the basic level of intelligence, as we see here. Many of the cult are unable to learn.
A higher level of intelligence is demonstrated by being able to figure things out. I used to have a large shop with a 14 ft overhead door. In summer, I kept the door open for ventilation. Hummingbirds would fly in, but couldn’t get out. The 22 ft ceiling was white, and they kept flying into it, trying to get out. They couldn’t figure out how to go back through the 14 ft door.
Cardinals (red birds) would fly in through the open overhead door, and when ready, leave through it. They had the intelligence to figure it out. The poor hummingbirds didn’t. The hummers had the instinct to fly up, believing the white ceiling was the sky. But they weren’t able to go against that instinct, even to death. I lost 4-5 hummers before I bought a butterfly net to catch and release them.
Dirt-daubers would build their mud tubes in the shop. I was content with sharing my space, because the daubers kill spiders. I would leave the walk-in door open when the overhead door was shut. The daubers had no trouble coming and going through the much smaller door. I locked the door at night, and when I opened it in the morning, the daubers would be waiting beside the door to get in. Smart little critters.
On the scale of things, there are human brains, then bird-brains, then brains like yours. Can’t even call you a bid-brain because you’re not that smart.
Lumen Orbit emerges from stealth and raises $2.4M to put data centers in space
https://www.geekwire.com/2024/lumen-orbit-stealth-2-4m-data-centers-space/
Linked from: https://cosmiclog.com/
“Bellevue, Wash.-based Lumen Orbit, a startup thats only about three months old, says that its closed a $2.4 million pre-seed investment round to launch its plan to put hundreds of satellites in orbit, with the goal of processing data in space before its downlinked to customers on Earth.”
This like getting energy from space. Or use energy in orbit, instead of using energy on Earth surface, to process data.
Or lowers global CO2 emission.
Mercury
https://science.nasa.gov/mercury/facts/
“Temperatures on Mercury are extreme. During the day, temperatures on the surface can reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius). Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat, nighttime temperatures on the surface can drop to minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 180 degrees Celsius).”
–
Mercury has maximum day-time temperature 703K vs 107K the minimum night-time temperature. “Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat…”
One Mercury solar day (one full day-night cycle) equals 176 Earth days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin…….100.K…340.K…700.K
–
What would have been Mercury’s Tmean – the average surface temperature had Mercury Earth’s atmosphere?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat
Does your model take the atmosphere into account, Christos?
“Does your model take the atmosphere into account, Christos?”
–
For a very slow rotating planet like Venus, it is different, because Venus has a very dense and CO2 95% atmospheric content compared to Earth.
For Venus we should instead of planet rotational spin, we should consider the planet atmospheric winds the so much high velocity.
It is winds’ very much high velosity which produce the rotational warming phenomenon on Venus.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was a simple question, Christos.
Thank you for ignoring it.
Thank you, Willard, for youe response.
“Does your model take the atmosphere into account, Christos?”
–
“It was a simple question, Christos.
Thank you for ignoring it.”
–
****
Willard, I didn’t ignore it, I gave a simple answer.
For more detailled answer, please visit my site’s
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
page:
” All planets temperatures ”
subpage:
” Venus’ Tmean 735K “
Christos,
Thank you for playing dumb once again.
The answer is no, your model does not take the atmosphere into account.
And now you’re suggesting that the atmosphere of Venus itself is providing the torque you need.
Please give yourself a break.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “It was a simple question, Christos.”, then answered yourself by writing “The answer is no”.
Why ask the question, if you think you already know the answer? That’s pretty silly, isn’t it? What do you think you achieve?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote – something utterly irrelevant once again.
Why?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “It was a simple question, Christos.”, then answered yourself by writing “The answer is no”.
Why ask the question, if you think you already know the answer? Thats pretty silly, isnt it? What do you think you achieve?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Do you think repeating your irrelevancies will make them relevant?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “It was a simple question, Christos.”, then answered yourself by writing “The answer is no”.
Why ask the question, if you think you already know the answer? That’s pretty silly, isn’t it? What do you think you achieve?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you checked Christos’ model?
Well most would agree it would loses it atmosphere, given enough time. But I would assume it could keep an Earth’s atmosphere for centuries. And I would add an ocean. And btw for Space rocks it could easier to get to Mercury {you could impact it with space rocks with a high water content}.
We could begin by adding an atmosphere like Mars [25 trillion tonnes of CO2].
So going to have terminator line like Venus. The sky falls when it it become night and becoming night takes a long time. It current temperature freeze out CO2 {Mars poles are warmer]. Or it’s given it’s night side will be about 120 K [or warmer] as will it’s poles.
Or the 25 trillion tons of CO2, would freeze out. So if add 50 trillion tons, it might like atmosphere of Mars [with 1/2 of it frozen out].
Mars has no temperature due to thin atmosphere, so what going to hot is ground surface in daylight “hours {or days/months}” and warmed air, will less dense it surface [as compared to Mars {Mars is .02 kg per cubic meters] so somewhere around .01 kg per cubic meter. And denser on night side [at surface].
So instead adding 50 trillion, let’s add another 50 trillion tons with total of 100 trillion tons added. So you get more CO2 ice and higher density air at surface on sunlit side [and higher atmosphere- at same density as first one].
Now every Mercury day and night cycle, you going melt 100 tons of CO2, though CO2 in polar region “might be” more permanent- and we can ignore that. And we might ask, when in daylight [early morning] is it going to melt/sublimated?
You have direct sunlight and atmospheric type warming. And got craters which are shaded in early hours.
Though you have these same craters, now, which would colder than if covered with frozen CO2.
Anyhow it’s significantly warmer and let’s nitrogen and oxygen {or water}. Say add around number of 100 trillion tonnes of N2 {though O2 should be a lot cheaper]. And increase air density higher than Mars and at some point could air which is warm or hot {or cold}.
Just to clear, when added more CO2 and made more CO2 ice on nightside which will be evaporated on blazing hot dayside, the “more warming” of Mercury. Because more sunlight is absorbed and transferred giving latent heat to nightside. Or it will be all gone well before noon [or noon surface ground temperature will be the same].
gbaikie,
“when added more CO2 and made more CO2 ice on nightside which will be evaporated on blazing hot dayside, the more warming of Mercury.”
–
Consequently, the Mercury’s average temperature will be less differentiated, and, as a result, Mercury’s average temperature will be higher than the currently measured
Tmean = 340K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
Or frozen CO2 would have a greenhouse effect.
troubleshooting…
wee willy…”In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades”.
***
More ijits with their statistical analysis that means nothing. The Brits tried to introduce democracy but they were resisted by ijits within India who did not want it. Same in China circa 1915 when Sun Yat Sen tried to introduce it, most Chinese did not want it because they were suspicious of it.
In India, during WW II, when the Japanese took over Burma and were intent on invading India, some Indians sided with the Japanese in hopes they would overthrow the Brits. An Indian force were supporting the Js. The Indians had no idea what life would like under the Js. Even Ghandi sided with the ijits.
Under the guidance of General Bill Slim, the Brits, along with Stillwell’s Yanks, the Chinese, and some Indian allies (Gurkas, Sikhs) withstood the Js and drove them back into Burma in total defeat.
There’s your history wee willy, the reality rather than ijit claims by bean counters.
I am very aware of the brutality used by the Brits in India at tims but you have no idea what they were dealing with. Same with Mao. When h was asked about his brutality, he asked, “What else could I do”?
It’s easy for us to sit back today, most never having experienced totalitarian states, and judge others with serious issues trying to reform a country. In China, they had warlords reluctant to live peacefully and the roads were rife with muggers and robbers. How do you deal with armed people who refuse to cooperate?
I have no idea because I have never had to live under such conditions. Mao was not brutal by nature, he grew up in a university/arts life and he was oppressed by people like China Kai Shek and the Kuomintang, who murdered his young wife. The guy was rightly bitter but he strove to get equality for women and implement reforms in education and agriculture.
Anyone who thinks they could have done better, please step forward. Those same people will argue that the Brits were wrong to bomb German cities in WW II and that the US should have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbour. Those same klowns are climate alarmists today.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Elections in India started with the 195152 Indian general election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_India
Let our cranks remind themselves how this election came to happen.
“Let our cranks remind themselves . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
General elections were held in India between 25 October 1951 and 21 February 1952, the first after India attained independence in 1947.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Elections in India started long before 1947. ”India voted for the first time after independence in 1951, however, the elective element for Indian natives in legislative bodies dates back to 1909.”
Gill forgets a small detail:
“But the legislative bodies created thereunder were small bodies, consisting only of nominated members, with no representation of the local people under the former Act and with a small element of local representation under the latter.”
Either he missed it, or he decided to hide it under the rug, like so many inconvenient receipts his clients asked him to make disappear.
Your source is incorrect. The acts your quote applies to are the Indian Council Acts of 1861 (former) and 1892 (latter).
Here are all the details.
https://www.sahapedia.org/how-india-votes-history-elections-during-british-rule
Gill does not recognize his own source.
LMAO!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Vournas
” But not a word about 288K, why?
You know why? Because it is a satellite measured earthern average temperature 288K ! ”
As mostly, Vournas, you are 100% WRONG.
Not everybody communicates about absolute temperatures because they are of interest only to those few ~ 0.01 % of the population who need this info.
*
Berlekey Earth communicates its Global data in anomaly form as well:
https://berkeley-earth-temperature.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
BUT they provide in the file also 12 month climatologies (i.e. baselines) wrt the means of 1951-1980, one of them for air temperatures:
Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 monthly absolute temperature:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
12.23 12.44 13.06 13.98 14.95 15.66 15.95 15.79 15.20 14.26 13.24 12.50
(I spare us the monthly standard error, it’s in the file.)
*
The yearly global average temperature for the period 1951-1980 then was:
14.105 C, i.e. 287.255 K.
By adding each of the 12 monthly baseline values above to the corresponding month in the year 2023 at the end of the file, you obtain as latest yearly average:
15.195 C, i.e. 288.345 K.
Apos for a little mistake: I took the 2023 anomalies for water below ice instead of air above surface :–(
Correction:
15.330 C, i.e. 288.480 K.
Binny,
Any fool can endlessly examine historical weather observations, hoping to predict the future, and many do.
You could probably do it yourself.
It won’t help you to describe a non-existent GHE, will it?
Accept reality.
Blather blather blather.
Heil Freedom of Speech!
“Heil Freedom of Speech!”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response.
–
“As mostly, Vournas, you are 100% WRONG.
Not everybody communicates about absolute temperatures because they are of interest only to those few ~ 0.01 % of the population who need this info.”
–
***
There is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” There is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface”
Don’t try to kid us, Vournas.
1. You don’t know anything about what you write here. Ican’t prove you wrong, but I’M sure you are.
2. That was not even the point.
The point was:
” But not a word about 288K, why?
You know why? Because it is a satellite measured earthern average temperature 288K ! ”
And you were 100% WRONG. Berkeley’s Global temperatures are SURFACE temperatures.
Get over it.
Bindidon,
But you cannot average the 2023 annual the much better the globally around measured temperatures, right?
“…because they are of interest only to those few ~ 0.01 % of the population who need this info. Right?
–
The +33C are also because they are of interest only to those few ~ 0.01 % of the population who need this info. Right.
For those who doesn’t need this info, let’s get them afraid of the
CO2 0,04 % doomsday.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” But you cannot average the 2023 annual the much better the globally around measured temperatures, right? ”
It seems that Google Translate doesn’t like Greek as a source that much.
Ξαναγράψτε την πρόταση για να έχετε καλύτερη μετάφραση, παρακαλώ.
But you cannot average for a single 2023 year, because there are too many and much more precise measurements for the 2023 year, compared to
1951 -1980 period.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
As all pseudo-skeptical people, you distillate doubt instead of contradicting.
No wonder: you would have to
– generate, out of the raw Berkeley station data sources, a first anomaly time series with area weighting wrt 1951-1980 out of all available sources;
– generate a second one excluding all sources starting later than 1980.
As the two baselines will be identical, you could prove your claim by comparing the 2023 anomaly averages grid cell by grid cell.
*
But this job you would never be able to do.
Yes, Vournas: polemically doubt is much, much easier than technical contradiction.
It’s worth repeating:
Reasons the GHE is bogus.
Reason #2 — The bogus ’33K’
The ’33K’ nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere. The mythical sphere is receiving the same average solar energy as real Earth, after albedo, of 960 W/m². We are not told if the mythical imaginary sphere is hollow or solid, or if it is spinning like Earth or always has the same side facing Sun. It’s all a mystery.
But in a steady=state condition the mythical sphere is believed to be emitting 240 W/m². So, using the S/B Law, the emission temperature can be calculated:
S = σT⁴
T⁴ = S/σ
T = [240*(10^8/5.67)]^0.25
T = 255K
Then, the mythical 255K is compared to Earth’s average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, as believed by the cult, is due to the GHE.
(You may sometimes see the difference as 33K, or 33 °C, since Kelvins are the same as degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, the difference would be 59.4 °F.)
The claim is then that Earth is 33K hotter than it’s “supposed to be”. Their math is correct, but their calculation is NOT linked to reality. Earth is NOT a mythical imaginary blackbody sphere. A large bullfrog can weigh 0.5 pounds. If you multiply 0.5 by a large enough number, say 2X10^25, that would make the bullfrog about the size of planet Earth. The math is correct, but the calculation is NOT linked to reality.
Earth is “supposed to be” the temperature it is, about 288K. Comparing it to a mythical imaginary object ain’t science.
Instrumentation measuring the global, annualized 255K is observing the real Earth system, Clint. No mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere is involved so that’s only in Clint R’s imagination.
Clint was shot down on #2 months ago. Funny Clint keeps repeating it though. Good humor.
As usual, Ball4 attacks me within minutes after I comment. He stalks me constantly, but his flak is always ineffective. He reminds me of the poor hummingbird mentioned above. He doesn’t understand, can’t learn, and can’t think for himself. He beats his head against the ceiling, unable to realize he could get out of the structure through the open 14 ft overhead door! He just continues to hit that ceiling, until he can not longer fly. I should call him “Hummer4”.
In his blatant incompetence, he claims Earth has a “REAL 255K surface”. That’s how unlearned he is. Earth’s REAL surface averages about 288K. There are 3 different levels of 255K temperature in Earth’s atmosphere. One level Is in troposphere, one in stratosphere, and one in mesosphere, but that only confuses cultists because it is reality:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
Now, watch Hummer4 continue bumping into walls and ceilings….
Ball4
255K is entirely theoretical using stefan-Boltzmann.
288K is based on average of actual global observations … probably lots of rules of thumb but its the best estimate available.
Clint is wrong in that he dismisses Stefan-Boltzmann (according to Clint, world renowned physict that he is, widely understood rules of physiscs are apparently wrong) but isn’t otherwise able to show how the basis for the calculations are wrong.
S-B theory is used to build the earthen 255K on orbit measuring instruments, Ken. It’s the same theory as used in my IR thermometer reading out 273.15K for a glass of ice water in my kitchen demonstrating the measurement devices work.
The earthen 255K can also be theoretically calculated using 1LOT and all measured input.
Ken, I have never “dismissed Stefan-Boltzmann”. Either you are so incompetent you can’t understand my comments, or you’re patently dishonest.
Or both….
Ken
” 255K is entirely theoretical using stefan-Boltzmann.”
No. It is brightness measured by satellites in the same way as O2’s microwave remote sensing. The frequencies are totally different of course.
*
” … probably lots of rules of thumb but its the best estimate available. ”
Ken, you have to prove your claims.
On this blog, UAH is better than anything else – but only because it shows a lower trend; if Spencer & Christy hadn’t move from rev 5.6 to rev 6.0 in 2015, you’d hear quite different things here, ho ho ho.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17OPbssfTFZ1gU-DdbHcCJUv1Ia4U_47l/view
As in ALL other comparisons (except recently NOAA STAR) UAH starts warmer and ends cooler: no wonder then that it shows a lower trend (0.14 vs 0.20 C / decade).
And Berk Earth really gives 288 K with surface measurements, as I explained upthread to Vournas with Berk’s most recent data.
*
{ Don’t bother about the opinionated Brit and his cascade ideology; even a fivefold cascade would show the same situation – but without wriggles and distortions. }
Here’s Berkeley Earth’s “values” –
“We believe our continued mission and responsibility is to deliver and communicate our findings to the broadest possible audience.”
If you want to believe that a charity set up by a husband and wife team, (which in 2020 managed to pay the wife $70,875, while receiving revenue of $56,990, for supposedly working 10 hours per week, is a paragon of science promotion), then feel free to do so.
How much did you donate to that particular charitable organisation? I’m guessing that the answer is “nothing”, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Appealing to an “authority” like Berkeley Earth is about as brilliant as appealing to the authority of a mathematician like Gavin Schmidt!
Keep dissecting historical observations. You never know, it might allow you to predict the future one day.
[laughing at gullible GHE cultist]
Bin 255K doesn’t exist anywhere so it cannot be measured. Its entirely hypothetical based on SB calculations on brillance from the sun and how much of that energy from the sun should be incident to earth. On the basis of that theoretical energy, SB is used to calculate surface temperature for earth at 255K.
288K is based on actual surface temperature measurement including UAH data.
So the problem is to account for the 33 K difference. The theory says the difference is due to GHG.
No one should be that backwards as to not understand the concept of GHE as derived using SB calculations.
The problem is in determining how much change, if any, is being caused due to increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far the evidence is ‘not much’.
I’m not going to try to prove any of it; do your own homework. SB is widely accepted and so is the theoretical earth surface temperature derived from using SB.
Ken,
I take the view that if observation and measurement are different to calculation, the calculation is wrong.
If GHE cultists wish to believe that a measured temperature should really be something else, they are quite mad. Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”, and I agree.
The plain fact is that the Earth has cooled from having a molten surface to its present mainly non-molten condition.
Others are free to believe otherwise if they wish. The facts won’t change.
Flynnson
All you alzheîmered bûnny are able to do is to discredit and denigrate anything you either don't understand or dislike.
Oh pardon… I forgot you main ability:
" Xyz, please stop trôlling. "
[ censôred ]
Ken
” Bin 255K doesnt exist anywhere… ”
You just need to search for the difference between clear sky and cloudy brightness.
*
” 288K is based on actual surface temperature measurement including UAH data. ”
Ken, UAH’s average absolute data for the Globe is ~ 264K.
This value is akin to the surface’s 288K because the lower troposphere is on average 24 K cooler than the surface…
*
” due to increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. ”
I’m not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem – who knows.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.”
That makes sense, if you accept that less H2O means higher temperatures – the hottest places are those with the least H2O in the atmosphere. Are you claiming that the GHE results in higher or lower temperatures?
Unfortunately, the coldest places on Earth are also those with the least H2O in the atmosphere.
Good try, Binny, but you still can’t describe the GHE, can you? That’s because it doesn’t exist!
“You just need to search for the difference between clear sky and cloudy brightness.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
If UAH is 264K and that accounts for difference 24K that is known to exist between surface and troposphere then its part of the measurement diaspora.
Still no 255K measurement.
The CO2 discussion is the only important discussion. Does increased CO2 pose a threat to climate? Yes or No. The indications are that it doesn’t so we shouldn’t be ending access to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are 200:1 benefit:cost ratio so there has to be really solid reason to end that access. Human flourishing depends on continued access.
Still, Ken ignores the on-orbit instrumentation’s global, annualized 255K measurement viewing the earthen system. The 255K does exist as it is measured at the orbit of the satellites carrying the instrument packages.
Measurements based on same theory and similar device construction as my IR thermometer measuring 273.15K viewing a glass of ice water in my kitchen.
“The 33K nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere.”
Which was called Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere. And there is no such thing, and Earth is not that close to it.
Earth somewhat close, but only because Earth is mostly covered by a transparent ocean.
The Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is largely about the max amount of sunlight a body can absorb. And without sunlight it would cool very fast.
And Earth’s ocean has a massive amount of heat energy and cools slowly, and warms slowly.
So Earth ocean holds 1000 times more heat as compared to Earth atmosphere. And the most significant aspect of Earth’s atmosphere, is the tropical ocean heat engine, which get energy from the tropical ocean and heats the rest of the World.
In terms of Europe, what add about 10 C to it’s average yearly temperature {mostly winter temperatures] is the Gulf stream, which transports tropical ocean heat, towards the poles.
A fast spinning space rock is more similar to an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody- because the fast spin act like an ideal thermally conductive body.
The cargo cult of global warming, does know why or how of Earth’s climate. Just as Marxist, know nothing about economics- or anything.
The are primitive and worship being primitive and past which was more primitive.
The want to go back to before the industrial global revolution- which has made our time, the best of times.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
So for Mercury, which is at rp = 0.387 AU (semi-major axis), and has a very low Albedo of about 0.142, its sub-solar temperature is predicted to be about 605 K, while its equilibrium temperature would be about 431 K.
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/320/Lecture14.html
Thank you, Willard, for very important reference.
“So for Mercury, which is at rp = 0.387 AU (semi-major axis), and has a very low Albedo of about 0.142, its sub-solar temperature is predicted to be about 605 K, while its equilibrium temperature would be about 431 K. These agree pretty well with accepted values of maximum temperature at the equator (about 700 K) and average temperature (340 K), keeping in mind that Mercury has a rather high eccentricity of 0.206, and it spends more than half of its time farther away that 0.387 AU. However, on the dark side of Mercury the equator temperature can be as low as 100 K (-173 C, or -279 F). ”
–
“its equilibrium temperature would be about 431 K”
“and average temperature (340 K)”
–
Amazing, isnt it? Why there is such a big difference between the measured Mercurys mean surface temperature, Tmean = 340 K, which is the correct, ( I have not any doubt about the preciseness of satellite planets’ temperatures measurements ) and the Mercury’s Te =431 K
Lets put these two temperatures together:
Te = 431 K
Tmean = 340 K
Very big difference, a 91C higher!
But why the effective temperature equation gives such a wrongly higher result?
The answer is simple it happens because the equation assumes planet absorbing solar energy as a disk and not as a sphere.
We know now that even a planet with a zero albedo reflects the
[1 – Φ(1-a)]S portion of the incident solar irradiation.
Imagine a completely black planet; imagine a completely invisible planet, a planet with a zero albedo. This planet still reflects the [1 – Φ(1-a)]S portion of the incident on its surface solar irradiation.
The satellite measurements have confirmed it.
The Mercurys Φ = 0,47 Paradigm has confirmed it:
Φ – the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Planet reflects the (1-Φ + Φ*a) portion of the incident on the planet’s surface solar irradiation.
Here “a” is the planet’s average albedo. So we always have:
Jreflected = (1-Φ + Φ*a)S
Jabsorbed = Φ(1-a)S
–
Let’s see, what is ercury’s Te.correct for Albedo ~ 0,142
431 K * (0,47)^1/4 = 431 * 0,828 = 356,8 K
Te.correct = 356,8 K
And it is very much correct, because we have used for the very smooth (basalt) surface Mercury
Φ =0,47.
Tmean = 340 K
and
Te.correct = 356,8 K
They are much closer now.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
They sending another orbital mission to Mercury, BepiColombo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo
It takes long because requires high delta-v vector change which require long time. Or it more than 1/2 way there but takes 7 year.
It will orbit in another two years.
Also using low thruster rockets which use less rocket propellant mass.
Christos,
Thank you again for the kind words –
“Thank you, Willard, for very important reference.”
They reveal that you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
“Please give yourself a break.”
Of course, enough said for a day… maybe for a week, or even for a month.
It is time to make myself scars again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Christos is prostrating in front of a first year astronomy handout.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The CERES energy imbalance has been updated through 2023/12. The 12m and 36m running averages are +1.80 W/m2 and +1.45 W/m2 respectively.
Yes bdgwx, that nonsense is always funny, especially when they report it to two decimal places!! Thanks for the reminder.
Can you believe some people actually believe such crap?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Psst, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640061
“Psst, Puffman ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint sez more stuff that he cannot ever backup with facts.
And as a consequence, we can see that he is getting increasingly irate about it, lashing out out at everyone.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Clint sez more stuff . . .”.
An example or two to support your assertion might help to overcome the perception that you are either demonstrating ignorance or stupidity by writing “sez”. Do you really mean “says”?
Maybe you could describe the GHE first, if you are going to complain about someone criticising so called “evidence” supporting an apparently mythical, never-observed phenomenon.
Over to you.
An energy expansion, rather than an energy transition related…
1/ Utility Scale Wind and Solar are losing Social License.
2/ Many communities are opposed to large-scale wind and solar power plants. Rural communities do not want their bucolic countryside despoiled with 400 foot tall wind turbines or carpeted with thousands of acres of solar panels that provide power to people in a distant city.
3/ One community in Pennsylvania banned a solar power plant that would have only covered a tiny 137 acres because it was “too big.” Ten counties in Ohio have banned commercial wind and solar power plants. San Bernardino County is the largest county in California and lies due east and is contiguous with Los Angeles County. It banned commercial wind and solar power for out-of-county use. Vermont and Maine are effectively off limits to wind and solar.
4/ This public database database of canceled wind and solar projects currently lists 622 canceled projects. https://robertbryce.com/renewable-rejection-database/
A,
What is the relevance to the non-existent GHE?
Nothing at all?
I thought so.
Carry on.
It’s about time people came to their senses. The use of wind and solar low-voltage power presents enormous problems for our current higher voltage grids. Any wholesale use of wind and solar power will require a complete re-design and restructuring of our power grids. Not only that, all our appliances will have to be converted to 12 and or 24 volt.
Of course, we can only use them where the wind blows and the sun shines.
The only alternative we have right now is nuclear power but it’s hard getting a nuclear reactor into a car.
If you going to live on Mars, you should use solar power for electrical power.
It also could reasonable to use solar power to create hot water on Earth.
And in terms of ocean settlements on Earth, you use solar energy to make freshwater.
The moon is better to use solar power to make electricity as compared to Mars {and far better than on Earth.
Solar panels were of course developed and build for use in space.
Or without satellite market, we would not have solar panels.
Solar panels make no sense for electrical power generation for electrical grids on Earth surface. They make sense sense if you camping or something.
And with ocean settlements, you would use conventional power generation or nuclear powerplants.
Gordon Robertson
Hold on there with your post. First you claim to be an electrical engineer and then you make a post about low voltage wind power. You don’t know about transformers that step up voltage to move energy across long distances with lower loss? High voltage allows energy to move much further and then it is stepped down for household use.
Where you get this 12 or 24 volt idea I have no clue.
This is reality, not sure where you pulled up your ideas. You never seem to support anything you post.
Here:
https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/electrical-works.html
Norman,
You wrote –
“Where you get this 12 or 24 volt idea I have no clue.”
Have you tried asking, or are you just being a silly GHE cultist?
Even countries do things which don’t seem completely rational. For example, the US uses an “imperial” measurement system, refusing to implement the “democratic” metric system. The US also uses a comparatively inefficient 110 VAC domestic supply, instead of
You probably have no clue why these oddities exist either.
I certainly have no clue why you are so clueless – maybe you are so clueless that you believe in a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Sometimes you wonder why people ask.
Sometimes you wonder why people don’t ask.
Why is that?
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon
“The only alternative we have right now is nuclear power but its hard getting a nuclear reactor into a car. ”
Not a problem.
Use the electricity from nuclear power to charge EVs. Or use the same electricity to make hydrogen to fuel hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer, thinks that PV can provide only 12 or 24 volts. He apparently missed the definition of an electric battery. Combine the PV panels in series and then feeding an inverter, one can build a system to provide much greater voltages, such as 230 volts that can be fed into the grid. Also, there are micro scale inverters for individual panels which can perform this task as well.
Entropic Man, E Swanson, please stop trolling.
SpaceX is cleared to attempt its third Starship test flight
“Now that the FAA has signed off, SpaceX is targeting 8AM ET on March 14th for the next Starship test flight.”
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/13/24100031/spacex-starship-flight-test-license-launch-window
So got go from FAA. But launching new rockets tend to delayed, and weather is not “great”. But it seems there is weather window for it, if things go according to the plan.
The Most Powerful Rocket in History Had a Good Morning
SpaceXs latest Starship mission flew farther than beforeand tested technology that could elevate humankinds spacefaring status.
By Marina Koren
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/03/spacex-starship-launch-propellant-transfer/677754/?gift=TC-umliihxh31hyjiYnixYW26iSpfqUVJeHyXT1C2yY
Linked by: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Marina Koren says:
“SpaceX has once again launched the most powerful rocket in history into the sky, and this time, the mission seems to have passed most of its key milestones. Starship took off without a hitch this morning, separated from its booster, and cruised through space for a while before SpaceX lost contact with it. Instead of splashing down in the ocean as planned, Starship seems to have been destroyed during reentry in Earths atmosphere.
The flight was the third try in an ambitious testing campaign that began less than a year ago. The other attempts started with beautiful liftoffs, but they stopped short of completing test objectives and ended in explosions. For todays test, SpaceX changed up its designs and applied them to freshly made Starship prototypes, which are manufactured at a pace that, compared with the rest of rocket history, evokes chocolates coming down the conveyor belt toward Lucille Ball. During todays test, the spacecraft even managed to conduct a crucial test, transferring rocket propellant from one tank into another while traveling at thousands of miles above Earths surface.”
Marina Korenalso says:
“The space agency will launch its astronauts off the ground and take them in a capsule toward the moon, but once they arrive in lunar orbit, a Starship will greet them and transport them down to the surface. And for that Starship to reach lunar orbit, SpaceX must launch a bunch of other Starships to refuel the spaceship for the journeyhence the importance of the fuel transfer. In other words, SpaceX is trying to create a gas station in space, circling Earth at the same dizzying speeds as space stations and satellites.
This floating infrastructure is unlike anything humans have attempted to do in space, and it will elevate our spacefaring capacity far beyond anything that was previously possible. The ability to refuel ships in space would crack open the solar system for us, making it easier for astronauts to reach not only the moon but also Mars and even planets deeper into the solar system. It would mean that spacecraft could utilize payload capacity that would have been reserved for enormous amounts of propellant. This decade may see several triumphant lunar landings, but the gas stations will cement our status as an advanced spacefaring species.”
I agree having gas station in orbit, is a major step to us becoming a spacefaring civilization.
Also another thing needed, is testing artificial gravity. And having gas station on the Moon {rocket fuel made from lunar water}.
So, determining whether lunar water in mineable and/or confirm what suspect from results from lunar orbit robotic missions about the possibility mineable lunar water, would be significant, too.
Interesting engineering philosophy.
“Test it, break it, learn from it. “
Can a country claim lunar territory?
Not at the moment.
Under the Outer Space Treaty all bodies are common ground like Antarctica.
Mind you, if anyone actually sets up a base at the lunar South Pole possession becomes nine points of the law and legal arguments become irrelevant.
For some reason I think of the way in which China is gradually colonizing the South China Sea by building islands in international waters and then claiming the sea around them.
US Congress has outlawed NASA starting human settlements.
The only way to mine anything is by private sector doing it.
Having a governmental telescope, is different matter. But it seems even telescope could something an University and/or private/nonprofit entity will do. A lot them are doing on Earth.
Anyways, NASA would be smart, if spends the least amount of time with Lunar exploration. NASA should view the Moon as pathway to doing Mars exploration. So, do enough lunar exploration but within 10 years it’s main focus should Mars {and I think also Venus, as a way to explore Mars. Venus is way to get back from Mars, quicker}.
“Starship seems to have been destroyed during reentry in Earths atmosphere”.
***
That’s what you get when you use Krazy glue to attach your heat shields.
At this point, it could be the case, Starship doesn’t need the heat tiles.
In last test the issue was control, couldn’t get control before re-entry.
Need another test {keeping heat tiles] having control, and see how much it heats up with the heat tiles.
Or in test 3, the first stage slowed to 1000 km per hour, and second stage was “lost” at around 24,000 km per hour.
I would say heat tiles are important when it’s going about 18,000 km per hour within the atmosphere.
And first stage just have get the right amount rocket engine power.
SpaceX took a few tries with Falcon-9 first stage, and Starship might need a couple more times.
Or since recovery of first stage, is most important thing {having 33 raptors at about 1 million dollar each]. At this point we have most powerful rocket ever flown, which lift around 200 tons of payload to LEO {twice as much as Saturn V rocket [the best rocket ever to fly]}.
So, SpaceX wants the whole rocket to be useable, but at this point got the best rocket and it’s far cheaper than Saturn V.
When SLS is upgraded, it can do about 140 tons to LEO, right now, it’s about 100 tons, and costing about 4 billion dollars per launch, launched ever 2 years. And it’s all expendable.
Starship as a expendable rocket lift about 200 ton, and costs about say 100 million per launch. Or 50 million dollars per 100 tons, and can launch more than 4 times per year. It’s “upgrade” is being reusable rocket. And reusing first stage is most important in terms “being cheaper”. So we should get that, this year. [SLS upgrade will take about 8 years].
So, if Starship is all expended [all rocket rockets except Falcon rockets were all expended {current other ones are being tested}].
It’s 10 times cheaper than all other rockets, including Falcon Heavy which was the cheapest rocket, ever.
If NASA wanted to spend, say 10 billion dollars, it could get the upgraded to SLS, and get maybe get a launchof SLS per every 1 or 2 years.
In comparison, NASA promised to pay about 3 billion dollars to get a “lunar lander which returns crew from lunar surface”. Or pays most of development costs of Starship.
And is paying Blue Origin something like 4 billion dollars for another lunar lander. Which also helps pay for the New Glenn rocket.
I like New Glenn rocket, and I hope it launches soon. It’s much smaller than Starship, but bigger than Falcon Heavy.
A New Glenn rocket isn’t very massive, and a pipelauncher could easily launch it, from the ocean. Starship is harder.
SpaceX planning rapid turnaround for next Starship flight
Jeff Foust March 19, 2024
https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/
“However, a planned relight of Starships Raptor engines while in space did not take place, which the company blamed on a roll induced in the vehicle. During reentry, the vehicle broke apart at about 65 kilometers altitude. The Super Heavy booster also exploded during the final stages of its descent to the Gulf of Mexico during a planned landing burn.
Well figure out what happened on both stages, she said, not discussing what may have gone wrong with either, and get back to flight hopefully in about six weeks, or early May.”
Earlier, Ball4 fantasised when he said “Its the same theory as used in my IR thermometer reading out 273.15K for a glass of ice water in my kitchen demonstrating the measurement devices work.”
Ball4 does not possess an IR thermometer capable of such precision, nor has he carried out such an experiment and documented what he claims to have done. It’s all a product of his imagination.
He is just another strange GHE cultist who believes that the Earth is being heated by farmers who construct greenhouses – and has stated so.
What a weird lad.
Don’t know of any IR thermometer that reads in degrees Kelvin. This is proof that B4 is not of this planet.
Gordon Robertson
Maybe Ball4 owns one of these…
https://www.globalspec.com/industrial-directory/kelvin_thermometer
You can switch them to read in any scale (F, C or Kelvin)
Norman,
You wrote –
“Maybe Ball4 owns one of these”
No he doesn’t. Feel free to correct me, if I’m wrong,
When the Houthis Found the Cloud”
More than 20 countries are, in one way or another, involved in the four damaged undersea cables.
Kevin XuMar 13, 2024
https://tinyurl.com/bpa2raf6
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“One topic this newsletter has been obsessed with over the last four years is cloud data centers. Partially because of my previous industry experience, working deeply on cloud-based tech products, partially because these data centers are just fascinating and so crucial to the global digital economy yet so misunderstood, I have always felt the need to write every time something interesting about the cloud comes up.
This obsession took an interesting turn when, last week, the AP reported that the Houthis slashed four (not three, as the headline suggested) undersea data center cables buried in the depth of the Red Sea. If true, then the Houthis have just found the cloud and realized how much disruption damaging these cables can cause to the global economy, perhaps even more damaging than their attacks on all the ships.”
I wonder if Houthis are supporters of Musk.
Going to make him richer.
Another tropical storm is developing over northern Australia. It may reach the Gulf of Carpentaria.
In March we have the same solar hours duration as in September.
The sun shines from the same high.
In September is much warmer at night, we still wear short sleeves.
But not in March. In March at nights is cold, in March at nights is cold, it is unpleasant even to stay outdoors at night.
Solar energy gets accumulated slowly. Also it gets slowly released to space. When there is more solar hours – at summer, more solar energy has kept.
It is not the thin atmosphere, it is the land and it is the water which accumulate heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s going to affect your calculations.
Your maths assumes 12 hour days and 12 hour nights, averaged over the planet.
Locally conditions can vary through the seasons.The
At high latitudes the variation can be extreme, from 24 hour daylight to 24 hours darkness.
And as you say , even when you have 12 hour daylight temperatures depend partly on how much heat is already stored in the system.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Your maths assumes 12 hour days and 12 hour nights, averaged over the planet.”
–
Also it is averaged over the year. (Average Albedo, and Average So).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In Greece air feels cold in March, not in September.
We do not swim in our seas in March, not until the late May and June.
But beaches are full in September, and partially in October, partially till about the end of November. Some go, in sunny and windless days, even close to Christmas, but after – not! The water is too cold then!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“And as you say , even when you have 12 hour daylight temperatures depend partly on how much heat is already stored in the system.”
–
Yes, but satellites estimate surface temperature by measuring the outgoing IR radiation, the most of which goes out (without being stored) during the day, and the outgoing IR intensivity is determined by the incident solar energy’s intensivity.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…the sats used by UAH do not measure IR. They measure microwave frequencies in the 60 Ghz band given off by oxygen, where the radiation frequency varies with altitude.
This is proof that major gases in the atmosphere do radiate. Swenson and I agree that all atoms (elements) radiate energy. It has to be the same for nitrogen, it has to radiate at some frequency.
If oxygen is radiating in the 60 Ghz band, then it is cooling. That has to cool the atmosphere much more than CO2.
Of course. Atmosphere gets warmed by the surface, when air gets in immediate contact with, and from H2O vapor condensation.
Then all that energy is emitted to outer space, as every other energy does.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
EM,
Hopefully, your calculations show that the Earth emits more energy than it receives.
If they don’t, they are wrong.
If you disagree, you might say why you believe that the Earth has not cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
[derisive snort]
I think Earth hasn’t cooled too much. It is pretty much hot inside.
Just look at volcanos, their erruptions are glowing at night.
Well Earth is a nuclear reactor. It may have decrease or increased it’s nuclear heat over time. And/or it’s heat generation could varied
or times it does more, and times it does little.
We are clueless. Exploring the Moon and Mars might give us some clues.
What is deepest cave on Earth?
Google: Veryovkina Cave.
“At 2,223 meters (7,257 ft) deep, it is the deepest-known cave on Earth.”
What is deepest cave on the Moon or Mars?
Which has deepest cave?
Could there been one 10 km deep? Or deeper?
If Earth had become less volcanic, hundreds of millions of years ago, would it have deeper caves, now?
We don’t know how volcanic Mars is, but the Moon is widely thought to be less volcanic recently, as compared to Mars.
And it’s thought that the Moon hot core is quite small.
gbaiki
Veryovkina Cave is in limestone, dissolved out by flowing water.
Nothing to do with volcanos.
Ok. So a lava tube:
“Kazumura Cave
Kazumura Cave is a lava tube and has been surveyed at 40.7 miles (65.5 km) long and 3,614 feet (1,102 m) deep making it the longest and deepest lava tube in the world.”
Hellas basin:
“Hellas is the third- or fourth-largest known impact crater in the Solar System. The basin floor is about 7,152 m (23,465 ft) deep, 3,000 m (9,800 ft) deeper than the Moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin, and extends about 2,300 km (1,400 mi) east to west. It is centered at42.4S 70.5E.”
And it’s thought, it could have lava tubes.
This isn’t new, but…
Lava Tubes on the Moon and Mars are Really, Really Big. Big Enough to Fit an Entire Planetary Base
Could lava tubes on the Moon and Mars play a role in establishing a human presence on those worlds? Possibly, according to a team of researchers. Their new study shows that lunar and Martian lava tubes might be enormous, and easily large enough to accommodate a base.
https://www.universetoday.com/147360/lava-tubes-on-the-moon-and-mars-are-really-really-big-big-enough-to-fit-an-entire-planetary-base/#google_vignette
“What they found was that Earthly lava tubes pale in comparison to their lunar and Martian counterparts. Earthly tubes have diameters in the 10 to 100 meter (33 to 330 ft) range. But Martian tubes are about 100 times wider than that, and lunar tubes are positively gargantuan in comparison: 1000 times wider. The difference is due to the lower gravity on both worlds, and its effect on volcanism.” Paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825220303342?via%3Dihub
Also universetoday.com says:
“A mission to explore lava tubes on Mars is likely a long, long way off. But if one is ever developed, it wont have a shortage of targets. The United States Geological Service says that there are over 1,000 candidate cave entrances on Mars.”
I think we be doing it in about 10 years and find a lot more.
norman…”You dont know about transformers that step up voltage to move energy across long distances with lower loss? High voltage allows energy to move much further and then it is stepped down for household use.
Where you get this 12 or 24 volt idea I have no clue”.
***
The basic problem is that wind turbines generally use a generator which produces a pulsating direct current. Transformer need an alternating current. Also, most gens and solar only put out 12 volts or 24 volts…on a good day. The output is directly proportional to the wind speed.
That’s a basic problem. The main problem is that our appliances require a 60 hertz alternating current. It is virtually impossible to generate a 60 Hz voltage from a collection of wind farms. The best bet would be to filter the gens direct current and run it through an inverter to produce an AC voltage.
When an alternator, which produces AC naturally, is brought online to pump current into an existing network, it’s a major pain to synchronize the alternator to the phase and amplitude of the existing system. You cannot connect them arbitrarily since an out of phase condition will buck the existing voltage and could start fires or cause explsoions. Imagine trying to sync wind and solar farms to an existing system.
Solar energy is purely direct current and limited in size to 12 or 24 volts. Eco-alarmists are lying through their teeth to us re the feasibility of solar and wind power.
Gorde repeated his display of his ignorance of electrical engineering repeated his claim that:
.
SEE POST ABOVE.
Is that all you have Swannie? No proof to the contrary?
Gordo still can’t fathom that PV cells for large scale commercial applications use higher voltages than those for smaller scale roof top systems.
Most of solar is configured for 12 or 24V.
A single solar cell produces 0.5 ~ 0.6 Volts. You can build the array to produce whatever voltage you like but most applications involve batteries that are configured for 12V so the solar is too.
The people who really get into the solar energy rewire the house for 12 or 24V lighting.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The basic problem is that wind turbines generally use a generator which produces a pulsating direct current”
Not really. The large ones have AC generators.
https://tinyurl.com/529t878d
Norman,
What’s your point? Are you trying to divert attention away from the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE?
There is no GHE. Accept reality – or not. Nothing will change.
Technically-speaking, there is no such thing as an AC generator. Generators, by design, can only output a pulsating direct current.
It gets more hilarious the longer I read on current wind technology. The current machine used is a doubly-fed generator, meaning it is reliant on electrical power supplied from the grid. Eco-alarmists become more hilarious the more you read their schemes.
Gordon Robertson
For Solar, this is how it is done
https://tinyurl.com/4aj83av4
Here is a link to MISO energy production. Wind is at 18,000 MW. They are able to put this on the grid and customers are able to use it. Electrical engineers figured out how to do this successfully.
https://tinyurl.com/2rran57w
The problem with wind is not how to get it on the grid. It is with its unreliability. The wind can be generating it peak of 25,000 MW in MISO one day and drop down to less than 5000 the next day. That is a major swing in power production.
Exactly, Norman.
Robertson once more doesn’t have a bit of a clue of what he is telling about:
” The basic problem is that wind turbines generally use a generator which produces a pulsating direct current ”
Once more we see that he never has been an engineer. No engineer on Earth would write such nonsense.
*
Voltage output for wind turbines is 400 – 1000 Volt.
Typical in Germoney are turbines with 5 MW power and 690 Volt.
Large wind turbines produce 3-phase alternating current like any electrical power plant.
*
You wrote above:
” The problem with wind is not how to get it on the grid. It is with its unreliability. ”
*
Not the unreliability is the real problem here in Germoney.
The main problem is that the major electricity producers have slept on their coal and nuclear laurels for decades, never taking renewable energies seriously and therefore never worrying about replacing the all-important north-south high-voltage lines.
The wind sector has been growing steadily for 10 years and most of the large turbines with up to 10 MW (in Denmark even 15 from Vestas) are all located on the North Sea.
But the electricity they generate is needed in the extreme south (Bavaria, Baden-Wrttemberg) which concentrates most big industrial electricity consumers.
That’s why the wind farms in the north have been complaining for years that they have to constantly take their systems off the grid when the wind conditions are favorable so that grid overloading does not occur.
Bindidon
Well now that they know the problem with transmission of power from the North to the South are there plans in the work to upgrade the transmission lines to get the power where needed?
On Gordon, I just don’t know where he gets his awful information and why he has such a need to pass on these incorrect ideas. You think he might realize most his sources are liars and conmen. Like Lanka, Shula, Russian Intelligence, etc. He seems to just blindly accept the liars and when you show they are wrong he does not research or consider he has been “taken” but doubles down and calls me an “ijit” without realizing he is the one who is wrong.
I know you have worked with him but nothing seems to work. Next liar he finds he will post the crackpot material as if it is good valid science.
My hope was that Gordon could see, after some time of being constantly corrected, that his sources are really bad.
“Next liar he finds . . .”
Norman, please stop trolling.
binny uses the same ploy as Norman, citing numbers without explaining how a wind-driven generator outputs AC and 400 – 1000 volts. He even calls them turbines, a word that is meaningless in this context.
This is typical of climate alarmists, long on words, short on fact.
How do these power sources generate 60 hertz, never mind 3-phase at 60 Hz?
—
“The main problem is that the major electricity producers have slept on their coal and nuclear laurels for decades, never taking renewable energies seriously and therefore never worrying about replacing the all-important north-south high-voltage lines”.
***
Last I heard, Germany was furiously trying to get their coal-fired generators back on line. That’s partly because they were wrong about wind and solar power and partly because Russia cut off their oil supply.
Alarmists like to ignore the fact that all countries currently pushing wind and solar are still heavily reliant on fossil fuel energy.
The fact that Norman and Binny are backing each other is testament to their alarmist panic.
Gordon Robertson
What are you trying to claim here: “The fact that Norman and Binny are backing each other is testament to their alarmist panic.”
What?? Looks like rather than admit you got your pants pulled down (your ignorance exposed) you double down with some irrelevant insult about “alarmist”. I am not an alarmist. I like science and this is a science blog. You, Clint R, and Swenson are cult minded posters who just state opinions and leave out evidence or facts. That is why you believe Conspiracy Theories, they are unproven opinions on events and you absorb them.
“Looks like rather than admit you got your pants pulled down . . .”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Poor Norman can’t get me out of his head. Like most stalkers, he’s obsessed with me.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint, above all else, craves attention.
Negative attention for ridiculous claims satisfies that need, he has realized.
Then he whines about getting it.
Child Nate, your false accusations are as ineffective as your knowledge of science.
Norman has a penchant from criticizing people as being incompetent then reveals his own incompetence by being unable to explain his disagreement. Instead, he point a link to a power supplier. What else do you expect them to say about wind power?
I have explained the problems re wind power, namely line frequency and reliability, yet Norman feels free to ignore that and quote data from a power company. For one, there is no such thing as a megawatt wind-driven generator, the megawatt reference is to an entire farm of them.
Norman fails to explain how MISO generates 25,000 Mw, he simply looks at a graph and accepts it.
Gordon Robertson
Nice attempt to cover up your incredible ignorance. It would be interesting if you could accept you don’t know what you are talking about and rethink your sources. I am not sure you can do this but it would be interesting to see.
There are plenty of MW wind powered generators. The big ones you see might be one or two MW generators.
https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Wind-energy#:~:text=Wind%20turbine%20capacity%20has%20increased,and%208%2D12%20MW%20offshore.
“Wind turbine capacity has increased over time. In 1985, typical turbines had a rated capacity of 0.05 MW and a rotor diameter of 15 metres. Todays new wind power projects have a turbine capacity in the 3-4 MW range onshore and 8-12 MW offshore.”
I still don’t know the source of your information. Are you making it up as you go? Will you admit you don’t know what you are talking about and jsut post anyway?
norman, you ignorance is abysmal and responding to you is a lost cause. I have already supplied enough info so that an intelligent reader can get it that you are not dealing with a full deck.
Gordon Robertson
No you have not supplied any valid information. It seems you are the lost cause here as you just make up stuff and consider it to be valid information. You have a strange mind Gordon.
What ignorance am I supposedly portraying. I am linking you to information. I fail to see how that makes me ignorant. You are the one claiming to be an Electrical Engineer but you are not aware of some easy to look up material. Hunkering down on your made up opinions. I think the other would be true on this one. Rather than saying a poster who links to information is not dealing with a full deck, it would be more obvious that the one making up things and stating false information is the one lacking.
Norman, you nitwit,
You are lurching off in all directions trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have lost faith in the GHE cult leaders, is that it?
You now realise that none of the GHE cultists can even describe this mythical phenomenon, so you are reduced to pretending that someone else has, or will, or possibly could – but you certainly aren’t going to demonstrate that you actually possess such a description!
Go on, be evasive – provide more irrelevant and pointless links.
Or just accept reality – there is no GHE.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
[laughing at fact-free fanatic]
Mike Flynn,
Norman was responding to Bordo.
Bordo was not talking about the greenhouse effect
Why are you lurching so much?
Norman, you nitwit,
You are lurching off in all directions trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have lost faith in the GHE cult leaders, is that it?
You now realise that none of the GHE cultists can even describe this mythical phenomenon, so you are reduced to pretending that someone else has, or will, or possibly could but you certainly arent going to demonstrate that you actually possess such a description!
Go on, be evasive provide more irrelevant and pointless links.
Or just accept reality there is no GHE.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
[laughing at fact-free fanatic]
Mike Flynn,
Norman was responding to Bordo.
Bordo was not talking about the greenhouse effect
Why are you lurching so much?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Squaring the circle related…
1/ An inevitable commodity super cycle is now closer than ever.
2/ Demand for oil continues to grow and is expected to hit 103.18 million barrels of oil per day in 2024, 1.34 million barrels per day higher than 2023.
3/ Key OPEC countries have admitted they are near pumping capacity and have warned non-OPEC countries to invest in long-term oil and gas projects.
4/ Cumulative underinvestment in oil and gas over the last 10 years could be $2 trillion. Record low discoveries in 2023 reflect this underinvestment.
5/ World mineral deposits are past “peak minerals.”
6/ Input energy prices are a major cost in making the material-intensive equipment to capture wind and solar power.
7/ The consensus need for an energy expansion/transition, or the need to arrest AGW are not the cause of this commodity super cycle.
8/ Supply, demand, and underinvestment are the underlying causes.
ark pulls out the alarmist desperation manual.
A,
What are you trying to say?
You started off –
“1/ An inevitable commodity super cycle is now closer than ever.”, and finished with –
“8/ Supply, demand, and underinvestment are the underlying causes.”
Well, gee, that’s completely pointless, isn’t it? You might just as well don a sandwich board proclaiming “The end is nigh! Repent!”, and roam the streets at night.
Have you abandoned the GHE cult?
I wouldn’t blame anyone who questioned your mental stability, that’s for sure!
AO, wrote several points, including this:
The new techniques of horizontal drilling and “fracking” have provided a boom in production, but they do not guarantee an increase in the supply of low cost gasoline or diesel fuel. HERE’s a graphic display of the rapid decline in production from fracked wells.
Are you saying that the mystique of Markets, aka, Capitalism, can’t provide all the energy which the people of the Earth continue to demand?
“AO, wrote…”
On the off chance that you’re asking me:
My comment is about a commodity supercycle.
p.s: if you don’t know what a commodity suprcycle is, read this: https://am.jpmorgan.com/gb/en/asset-management/per/insights/market-insights/market-updates/on-the-minds-of-investors/clean-energy-investment/
A,
The usual sign of somebody who doesn’t know what they are talking about, is that they provide links to other people who don’t know what they are talking about.
That would be you, in this case.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
The usual signs of a comment by Mike Flynn comment is (1) denial, (2) sammich request, and (3) saying stuff.
Feel free not to write an ordinary comment by Mike Flynn.
“sammich request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
climate alarmists and eco-alarmists are trying to ensure that fossil fuels are priced so high that no one will use them. This is not akin to pricing cigarettes to discourage smoking, it will affect many people inadvertently. Expect a major push back as that dawns on the public and how it will affect their lives.
It’s also good for Russia.
swannie…”Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer, thinks that PV can provide only 12 or 24 volts. He apparently missed the definition of an electric battery. Combine the PV panels in series and then feeding an inverter, one can build a system to provide much greater voltages, such as 230 volts that can be fed into the grid”.
***
I was talking about individual panels generating a direct current. I offered my opinion as a simple example. However, those panels do not come in other voltage ranges than 12 or 24 volts.
My point was aimed at the fact that you always end up with a D-C voltage and to use that on a grid, you have to convert it somehow to AC with a phase of 60 Hz. That can be done using a D-C to AC inverter but the output is dirty due to spurious noise introduced by the semiconductors used in inverters. Then you have the problem of synchronizing the voltage pases.
Inverters are fine in your car where you want to plug into a cigarette lighter and get 110 volts/1500 watts of AC to drive a light bulb or whatever. However, applying that to a power grid would introduce major headaches.
Gordo, the self-proclaimed EE, apparently missed out on all the progress in PV power these past 20 years or so. HERE’s a posting on Craig’s List for some “commercial” 490 watt PV panels with max power point at 38 volts at $189 each. Then too, pure sine wave inverters have been around for decades. I use one as a computer backup for power failures with 4x12v batteries to run it at 48V.
swannie…you are beating a dead horse. Get over it, solar power is D.C and not compatible with 3 phase systems.
Gordo, the self-proclaimed EE, nobody has ever claimed that D-C current can directly power 3 phrase machines. I have no clue from what depths of your addled brain that appeared or even why you tossed out that red herring.
While I have no experience with D-C electric powered cars of today, I would expect that that conversion problem was solved years ago by Toyota with their Prius hybrid system. BTW, the 2004 Prius design appears to employ a 3 phase motor, if I’m reading the technical report correctly.
ES,
Well, I suppose you need a diversion from having to face the reality that neither you nor anyone else can actually describe the GHE.
Arguing about total irrelevancies like solar power, rotation of the Moon, commodity super cycles, or forms of government will keep everyone involved from facing the reality that there is no GHE!
Do you accept that the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, or do you think that is hotter due to the mythical GHE? Or maybe you think that the GHE cooled the Earth, but you are not prepared to commit yourself to any particular point of view for fear of being laughed at, is that it?
Carry on.
[laughing at exceptionally wishy-washy GHE cultist]
swannie…you are so muddled you are completely missing my point. Neither solar nor wind power is compatible with our current 3-phase, 60 hz infrastructure. Making it compatible would be a major undertaking involving the wholesale re-design of the infrastructure.
Right now, we have a patchwork system that is apparently not working well.
Gordo the self proclaimed EE, You were the guy that brought up running motors with 3 phase electricity, not me, so you should admit that you were wrong. Furthermore, there are by now numerous examples of renewable systems being connected to the grid, a prime example being the wind energy systems in Texas. You guys will keep ignoring reality, since disinformation is your game.
Robertson is really the worst, most contrarian pseudo-engineer.
It is really incredible to read such nonsense as
” Neither solar nor wind power is compatible with our current 3-phase, 60 hz infrastructure. Making it compatible would be a major undertaking involving the wholesale re-design of the infrastructure. ”
How is it possible to be so uneducated, ignorant and stubborn?
Here is the energy production mix in Germany for 2023
https://tinyurl.com/Germoney-net-elec-prod
*
Some facts from the German Fraunhofer Institute (which can be verified at any time, but of course get never and never published by contrarian sources like Gosselin’s TricksZone).
Photovoltaic systems generated around 59.9 TWh of electricity in 2023. Of this, around 53.5 TWh went into the public network and 6.4 TWh was self-consumption.
Total production has increased by approx. 1 TWh or 1.4% compared to the previous year elevated. The installed PV capacity was 80.7 GW at the end of November. The expansion in 2023 was approximately 13.2 GW by November.
*
Wind power plants produced approximately 139.8 TWh in 2023 and were approximately 14.1% above production in 2022. The Wind energy was again the strongest energy source of the year, followed by brown coal, solar, natural gas, biomass, hard coal, Hydropower and nuclear energy.
*
{sarc} Of course, all these electricity production sources exist only in the mind of German alarmists. {/sarc}
*
Yeah. That’s Robertson, the guy who appeals to the authority of several contrarian sources, and discredits and denigrates the rest.
The energy production mix chart in English (updated version)
https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=2023
This interactive variant is much more interesting than the static picture above: it shows history as well as present state, down to day by day.
Everyone know this is pi day? 14th March = 3.14.
Gordon,
In civilised countries it’s one hundred sevenths day – 14.3!
All hail to the sevenths!
well…pi does = 22/7
btw…Einstein’s birthday is also on pi day.
wee willy…”Elections in India started with the 195152 Indian general election”.
***
India was granted independence by the Brits in 1947 after 200 years of British rule. Before, 1947, India was part of the British Empire.
We willy can’t seem to work out the simple details.
Gordo just keeps asking for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_integration_of_India
He’s skipping over the reasons why the Brits gave away what was not theirs in the first place, but pretended it was for a century.
Wonky Wee Willy,
If you think that quoting irrelevant slabs of Wikipedia will make people believe that you or anyone else can describe the mythical GHE, you are dreaming.
You say “Hes skipping over the reasons why the Brits gave away what was not theirs in the first place, “, which is a contradiction in terms to normal people (you can’t give away what you dont have). Obviously not a problem to fanatical GHE cultists, who have no trouble believing in something which doesn’t exist!
Are you still trying to get people to adopt your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, while simultaneously raising alarm about catastrophic “global warming”?
Good luck with that, dreamer.
Mike Flynn,
If you think that anyone knows what you’re braying about, then you are deluding yourself.
Gordo’s gluttony has no relevance whatsoever with democracy.
Wonky Wee Willy,
If you think that quoting irrelevant slabs of Wikipedia will make people believe that you or anyone else can describe the mythical GHE, you are dreaming.
You say “He’s skipping over the reasons why the Brits gave away what was not theirs in the first place, “, which is a contradiction in terms to normal people (you cant give away what you dont have). Obviously not a problem to fanatical GHE cultists, who have no trouble believing in something which doesnt exist!
Are you still trying to get people to adopt your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, while simultaneously raising alarm about catastrophic “global warming”?
Good luck with that, dreamer.
Mike Flynn,
Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?
No need to answer, we know you do not think.
Cheers.
The Indians didn’t want the British to rule them for the same reason sane Americans don’t want institutionalized tin foil hat inmates running them.
Gill believes that Troglodytes don’t want MAGA hats ruling them.
I can live with that.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?”
Presumably that’s why you didn’t mention Ghandi – because you are silly.
Carry on fantasising.
Mike Flynn,
Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, expanding women’s rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability, and, above all, achieving swaraj or self-rule.
What are you braying about?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?”
Presumably thats why you didnt mention Ghandi because you are silly.
Carry on fantasising.
You mention Ghandi (now) only after I pointed out that you hadnt previously – typical behaviour for idiot fanatical GHE cultists living in a dream world.
Go on, complain that someone one hasn’t mentioned something that was never mentioned!
Rather like Kevin Trenberth whining about “missing heat” that isnt there.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Gandhi adopted the short dhoti woven with hand-spun yarn as a mark of identification with India’s rural poor. He began to live in a self-sufficient residential community, to eat simple food, and undertake long fasts as a means of both introspection and political protest. Bringing anti-colonial nationalism to the common Indians, Gandhi led them in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (250 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930 and in calling for the British to quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned many times and for many years in both South Africa and India.
What are you braying about?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?”
Presumably thats why you didnt mention Ghandi because you are silly.
Carry on fantasising.
You mention Ghandi (now) only after I pointed out that you hadnt previously typical behaviour for idiot fanatical GHE cultists living in a dream world.
Go on, complain that someone one hasnt mentioned something that was never mentioned!
Rather like Kevin Trenberth whining about “missing heat” that isn’t there.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Gandhi’s vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early 1940s by a Muslim nationalism which demanded a separate homeland for Muslims within British India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.
What are you braying about?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?
Presumably thats why you didnt mention Ghandi because you are silly.
Carry on fantasising.
You mention Ghandi (now) only after I pointed out that you hadnt previously typical behaviour for idiot fanatical GHE cultists living in a dream world.
Go on, complain that someone one hasnt mentioned something that was never mentioned!
Rather like Kevin Trenberth whining about missing heat that isnt there.
Carry on. Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Pointing out that the Brits gave India back to Indians without mentioning Ghandi is kinda silly, do you not think?”
Presumably thats why you didn’t mention Ghandi – because you are silly.
Carry on fantasising.
You mention Ghandi (now) only after I pointed out that you hadnt previously typical behaviour for idiot fanatical GHE cultists living in a dream world.
Go on, complain that someone one hasnt mentioned something that was never mentioned!
Rather like Kevin Trenberth whining about “missing heat” that isnt there.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Abstaining from the official celebration of independence, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to alleviate distress. In the months following, he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence. The last of these was begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948, when he was 78. The belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defense of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims spread among some Hindus in India. Among these was Nathuram Godse, a militant Hindu nationalist from Pune, western India, who assassinated Gandhi by firing three bullets into his chest at an interfaith prayer meeting in Delhi on 30 January 1948.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Someone’s got to do it.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Virtually all commercial power stations generate electricity using AC generators. The external power needed to turn the generating coil is usually supplied by a steam turbine (steam blasting against fan-like blades which are forced into rotation). Water is vaporized to produce high pressure steam by burning coal, or by using the energy released inside a nuclear reactor. Of course, in hydroelectric power stations, the power needed to turn the generator coil is supplied by a water turbine (which is similar to a steam turbine, except that falling water plays the role of the steam). Recently, a new type of power station has been developed in which the power needed to rotate the generating coil is supplied by a gas turbine (basically, a large jet engine which burns natural gas). In the United States and Canada, the alternating emf generated by power stations oscillates at $f=60$Hz, which means that the generator coils in power stations rotate exactly sixty times a second. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, the oscillation frequency of commercially generated electricity is $f=50$Hz.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node90.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Back by popular demand — Reasons why the GHE is bogus.
#3 was debunked months ago. Clint R’s attempted con is to not use the same m^2 in the denominator in order to deceive the reader. When considering the cone’s total area (900in + 0in over the rest of the area) at equilibrium, then find 180 w/m^2 in and 180 w/m^2 out where the m^2 are the same m^2 and Clint R’s con is defeated.
Correct, the cone’s flux-in does NOT balance with its flux-out.
Ball4 unwittingly proves me right.
And, he’ll return to do it again….
Ball4,
Cones? What next? Spheres, plates, overcoats, blankets and buckets?
Why don’t you just accept that the GHE doesn’t exist?
That’s why you don’t want to mention it, isn’t it? You can’t even describe this mythical phenomenon.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – unless you can provide experimental proof to the contrary.
See the top post for experimental proof to the contrary. Poor Swenson can’t seem to ever understand reality. Pity.
Ball4,
Cones? What next? Spheres, plates, overcoats, blankets and buckets?
Why dont you just accept that the GHE doesnt exist?
Thats why you dont want to mention it, isnt it? You cant even describe this mythical phenomenon.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature unless you can provide experimental proof to the contrary.
You imply that Dr Spencer has experimental proof to the contrary. He hasnt. He shows observations that indicate thermometers react to heat, and surmises that humans create additional heat. You might not like facts, but that wont make them go away.
Sounds fair to me. In the meantime, the Earth continues to cool.
just like you keep avoiding the reality that you cant even describe this mythical GHE.
Feel free to prove me wrong – thats what science is about.
“To actually find Earths energy balance, energy in MUST be compared to energy out. Energy must be used, not flux. ”
You are pushing on an open door. We agree!
The warmists here are less pedantic than you coolists. Chatting on the blog we use flux as a synonym for energy, with flux used as a convenient measure in energy budgets because converting to energy requires extra calculation steps.
“Flux in = Flux out” only works when all else is equal.
Your cone example illustrates this.
The “flux in” is absorbed by a small area and the “Flux out” emitted by a larger area. Thus “Flux out” has a smaller power/area value than “Flux in”.
When you convert from flux to energy, watts/m^2 to joules, energy in = energy out.
At its equilibrium temperature your cone absorbs X Joules and emits X Joules, as we would all expect.
All this time you’ve been waving a straw man around, which turns out not to exist. Glad to see you’ve finally come to your senses.
Oh good, Ent has joined Ball4 in the failed effort to pervert science and reality.
Ent’s line was especially funny: “…with flux used as a convenient measure in energy budgets because converting to energy requires extra calculation steps.”
More than that Ent. Converting to energy requires matching the exact flux with the exact area.
Your cult can’t do that. The attempt to average, estimate, assume, and guess becomes even funnier when the result is reported to two decimal places! That’s why the ‘EEI’ is bogus.
… only in Clint R’s con job.
Sigh.
Just when we were having a sensible conversation you relapse into all the old denier memes.
What will it take to get you to put aside your biases and actually use your intelligence?
Ent, the reason we can’t have a “sensible conversation” is because you are a hard-core cultist that believes in perverting science and reality. You believe in so much nonsense that it’s like you never grew up. Your head is filled with childish fairy tales.
Do I need to list some of the crap you tout here?
Maybe the misinformed and hence misrepresenting denier simply starts to come back out of his blind-alley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
It’s exactly the same kind of redundant nonsense as
– 240 W/m^2 is wrong;
– the Moon doesn’t spin because it shows always the same face to him.
Yes Bindi, a radiative flux has units of Watts per area, or energy per time per area. Very good.
And you also got two other things correct:
* 240 W/m^2 is wrong [as is the bogus 255K]
* the Moon doesn’t spin because it shows always the same face to him
Keep accepting reality — it makes you look smart, for a change.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[JOE PYNE, CONFRONTATIONAL SHOCK JOCK] So, Frank, you have long hair. Does that make you a woman?
[FRANK ZAPPA, MUSICIAN GENIOUS OF WEIRDNESS] So, Joe, you have a wooden leg. Does that make you a table?
Thanks for this quick shot reply of the Waka/Jawaka man.
On of Frank’s better lyrics was…’broken hearts are for a**h***s’.
Peak hubris: https://youtu.be/g_GlpU_BWO0
Nvidia’s market cap is now over $200 billion higher than all of the companies in the S&P 500 Energy sector… combined. Meanwhile, the total net income of the Energy sector is $147 billion vs. $19 billion for Nvidia.
What’s NVIDIA’s golden goose? AI.
If everything is AI-driven, then it means everything requires electricity to operate, and no one who is running a data center says, well I’ll just run it when the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing. They need reliable, available, affordable energy that’s there 24/7/365.
So, our current hierarchy of needs looks like this:
1/ Energy, available at all times, preferably affordable and geopolitically secure, but you don’t actually care.
2/ Climate change.
3/ CO2 emissions reduction.
A,
You wrote –
“So, our current hierarchy of needs looks like this:”
Have you lost your marbles completely?
427.80 ppm CO2 in air 14-Mar-2024.
We are doing a lousy job of limiting it to 350 ppm.
Last time there was this much atmospheric CO2 was maybe 3 million years ago.
It increased from ~276 ppm in 1 CE to ~280 ppm at 1750’s Industrial Revolution.
Up 35 ppm in next 208 yrs to Keeling Curve start 1958.
66 yrs. to now, up 112 ppm. 3X increase in 1/3 the time.
I could rise to 1000 ppmv, won’t matter to us but the plants will love it. At 1000 ppmv, the planet will not be any warmer.
It does matter to us, CO2 at 1000ppm has biological including psychogenic effects in humans, it even start at 600ppm and can be nocitropic, toxic or increase psychological stress
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7701242/
Only way global Co2 could rise to 1000 ppm, is for governments to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, and they only spent about 10 trillion dollars in the cause to lower CO2 levels.
Stoking the commodity super cycle:
China has gone from, basically being balanced in oil supply and demand to now importing 11 million barrels a day, and they’ve only gone from 1.5 barrels per capita oil demand to about 4 barrels; we are at 20, Canada’s at 20, South Korea’s at 20, Europe’s about 10, barrels of oil consumption per capita.
A,
Given up completely on the mythical GHE have you?
Your attempt to save face by babbling about nonsensical irrelevancies is likely to be as effective as your previous GHE proselytising.
Carry on.
Hunter boy
Your Woods Hole stuff I found a week ago.
I simply wanted to check whether or not you finally would present a source ‘confirming’ your nonsense.
And… Yes he can!
https://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/mvco/description/SolRad.html
Can anyone on Earth imagine trusting such an undated and unsigned ‘document’ for more than a millisecond?
Yes! The Hunter boy definitely can. Me not!
*
Very interesting of course is that so many sources replicated WHOI’s ‘info’. You see that when googling for ‘solar radiation has an intensity of approximately 1380 watts per square meter’.
All strange sources seemingly having replicated WHOIS’s minipage, except such like
https://tinyurl.com/PhysStEx-1380
where no one knows who posted that with knowledge from where.
*
In the sum, Hunter boy’s hint on WHOI 1380 shows how credulous he is.
I sent by the way an email on March, 13 to ‘WH OI contact ‘ about their 1380 page, however without of course expecting any answer.
*
Hunter boy’s Solar Radiation hint is exaaactly of the same vein as Robertson’s hint on a document written around 2009, crawled by Amazon in 2010, and correctly (!) explaining that at a given moment during a major cleanup of non-automatic stations in GHCN V2, NOAA had only 1500 stations:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
*
Yeah. Pesudo-skep~ticism at its best.
Oh I forgot to mention the very best ‘1380’ link:
http://class.atmos.ucla.edu/AS3/scrns/heatrad/Note07.html
in which all pseudo-skeptical guys & dolls have to do the ‘grand écart’ (engl. split), by accepting the 1380 W/m^2 but rejecting the 255 K calculation.
*
And finally, I try to recommend Hunter Boy to read something more serious about solar radiation, for example:
A reevaluation of the solar constant based on a 42-year total solar irradiance time series and a reconciliation of spaceborne observations
Solar Energy
Volume 168, 1 July 2018, Pages 2-9
Christian A. Gueymard
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X18303463?via%3Dihub
*
Ooooh! OMG! That’s ‘appealing to authority’, isn’t it?
Binny,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
End of story. Deny away.
Mike Flynn,
Irrelevant claims are irrelevant.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
End of story. Deny away.
Flynnson wrote:
Te problem with your story is that for most of the past 3 million years (mol), the Earth experienced a series of ice ages which were cooler than today. Since about 11k years BP things got as warm as today.
ES,
You are obviously confused.
Glaciation is not relevant, being a limited surface phenomenon. The planet has not cooled, then warmed, then cooled – and so on.
Not unless you discard the laws of thermodynamics, one of which mentions that heat flows from hot to cold, and other related physical laws, instead putting your faith in magic.
You might just as well claim that where magma at a temperature exceeding 1000 C is exposed at the Earths surface, that this is “proof” the Earth is getting hotter!
Show some experimental evidence that a molten body suspended in space some 150,000,000 km from the Sun can spontaneously cool, heat, cool again, and so on.
If thats too hard, try describing the mythical GHE! A magic pile of blankets, perhaps? Cools, heats, cools, heats . . . Who needs air-conditioning?
Youre dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Irrelevant claims are irrelevant.
Cheers.
ES,
You are obviously confused.
Glaciation is not relevant, being a limited surface phenomenon. The planet has not cooled, then warmed, then cooled and so on.
Not unless you discard the laws of thermodynamics, one of which mentions that heat flows from hot to cold, and other related physical laws, instead putting your faith in magic.
You might just as well claim that where magma at a temperature exceeding 1000 C is exposed at the Earths surface, that this is “proof” the Earth is getting hotter!
Show some experimental evidence that a molten body suspended in space some 150,000,000 km from the Sun can spontaneously cool, heat, cool again, and so on.
If thats too hard, try describing the mythical GHE! A magic pile of blankets, perhaps? Cools, heats, cools, heats . . . Who needs air-conditioning?
You’re dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Irrelevant claims are irrelevant.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson wrote:
Flynnson actually provided a near perfect example of the GHE a few days ago. His mention of the fact that the amount of water vapor within the atmosphere affects the rate of night time cooling of a surface is proof that there is a Greenhouse Effect from water vapor as function of concentration. More WV, slower cooling, less WV, faster cooling.
The process is almost identical for CO2, exce3pt that the CO2 concentration is only moving slowly upward, so it’s effect will only be surface warming.
Here’s a conundrum for Binny. Between 1902 and 1962, the Smithsonian recorded ground solar radiation as 1346 W/m^2. They had no means during that period of getting instruments high enough to measure solar radiation, mainly because they had no adequate instruments and aircraft could only fly to a max of about 30,000 feet.
In 1968, with an aircraft they measured 1346 W/m^2 and with a balloon, 1373 w/m^2.
In 1976, using a rocket,they measured 1368 W/m^2.
Today, at TOA, they are measuring the same values, so it appears the atmosphere has no influence on solar radiation.
And what’s with the energy budget claim that only about 190 W/m^2 appears at the surface?
Page 6 of 8…
https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/111297/preprint_pdf/ca03a570ce8d904463a255eea54d58a5.pdf
“…in the past few years, a new, lower value of 1360.8 0.5W/m2 measured by TIM came to be considered to be more accurate…”.
TIM is the latest satellite flown instrumentation that measures a true TOA radiation.
What gives?
Gordon Robertson
You are ignorant of the energy budget. It is a global average, it is what each meter of Earth would receive if the energy was distributed equally. One square meter of surface spends a lot of time receiving not energy.
I would also like a source for your ground based reading of 1346 W/m^2. It is like you just make up stuff as you go. I don’t believe anything you post as most is wrong. So I did a little research on your made up value.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/mrytkjda
“The maximum global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level has been recorded is 1120 W/m2.”
So where did you get the 1346 value from? A blog? Just made it up? What are your sources that you never site?
I supplied a reference link with a page number. Guess it’s too difficult for you to read it and understand.
Actually it is page 6 of 18.
Norman,
Are you trying to support some mythical phenomenon that mentally challenged cultists refer to as the GHE?
Do you realise that nobody has managed to actually describe this non-existent “effect”?
You must be dreaming. Wake up and accept reality.
Robertson
Try to learn:
A reevaluation of the solar constant based on a 42-year total solar irradiance time series and a reconciliation of spaceborne observations
Solar Energy
Volume 168, 1 July 2018, Pages 2-9
Christian A. Gueymard
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X18303463?via%3Dihub
“Try to learn:”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
clint…”The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy”.
***
I agree that the EEI is bogus but flux must refer to energy. It is the amount of energy crossing a unit area per unit time. Otherwise, flux would refer to a nothingness.
The energy is electromagnetic energy and it is one of the only energies that needs to be referenced using flux. From that perspective, flux is a measure of the instantaneous change in energy intensity per unit area.
That’s how Newton defined flux, as a derivative. There is no other way to reference a change of EM, or a magnetic field, than by using the concept of flux. Heat in transit through a solid is often referenced as flux, which suggests heat is a rate of change of thermal energy over a unit area. However, with convection, heat is a measure of actual atoms/molecules flowing through a unit area per unit time.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to reference heat flow through a solid as a flux since, like electric current, it appears to be the same amount flowing at any time, like electric current. However, there is a drop in heat level which shows up as a temperature difference. Therefore temperature difference should be equivalent to a voltage drop in a series circuit.
With EM, there is no heat being transferred since EM is defined as an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, and it has a frequency. heat has no frequency and neither an electric or magnetic field. Therefore it is not appropriate to measure EM in watts. EM contains no heat and can do no work and the watt is a measure of work done by an electric current. It is used as a measure of heat but only as an equivalent, not an actual measure.
Gordon Robertson
Your thinking is flawed!
YOU: “With EM, there is no heat being transferred since EM is defined as an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, and it has a frequency.”
You can claim heat is not EM, fine. You are totally wrong to say that heat is not transferred by EM. It may not be heat but it certainly transfers it quite well.
Radiant energy can increase or decrease the temperature of any object. An object that is cooling or warming is losing or gaining heat. If the only method of heat transfer is EM than definitely EM is transferring heat. Your not being at all logical with your posts.
Anyway continue to babble on about things you know nothing about.
norman, no heat is transferred. It is lost at the Sun’s surface and re-created at Earth’s surface.
To understand that, you need to understand basic science, especially Bohr’s theory on the relationship between electrons in atoms, EM, and heat. It is not possible to ‘transfer’ heat via EM.
Come on Norman, you must know that heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum, and the 93 million miles of space between the Sun and Earth is a vacuum.
Energy is transferred by EM but EM is not heat and cannot transfer heat. EM can do no work, therefore it cannot be measured in W/m^2. The watt is a measure of electrical energy that can do work and heat can only be declared in watts as an equivalence. The calorie is still the basic measure of heat even though modern ijits are trying to redefine the calorie in watts.
Gordon, please quit clogging the blog.
You don’t have a clue about the science. You know less than Norman!
You don’t even know what time it is.
clint is a lot like Norman, full of insults and ad homs but no scientific discussion. It is clear that CLint has no response to my post.
That was no ad hom, Gord. That was reality.
I no longer attempt to teach you science because you don’t understand any of it. And, you can’t learn.
It was indeed ad hom, Puffman.
Silly willy now has to cover for his “Gordo”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Bordo’s “lacks the awareness to understand” is also ad hominem, Puffman.
Riddle me this – why do I need to be the adult in the room?
It is also clear from Clint comment about time that he lacks the awareness to understand that time has no existence. Same for flux, he uses the word but as no idea what it means.
Vournas
Do you remember your strange guess about Earth now slightly warming due to its current spatio-temporal position within the Milankovitch cycles?
https://tinyurl.com/Temps-10-Ky-to-present
While this graph (intentionally) distorts the last 1000 years due to the simple-minded Indonesia-Greenland average, it nevertheless shows that Earth is, on the global time scale, cooling.
“In short, it seems very likely that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than the Little Ice Age and warmer than today, the evidence is most compelling in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Full article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/15/the-holocene-climatic-optimum-and-the-pre-industrial/
Not a global average.
Greenland is centered on the maximal summer solar insolation at the Holocene Optimum. Most of the rest of the Globe would not warm nearly as much.
In any case the paleo reconstructions for the rest of the globe for this period are wildly uncertain.
Nate,
“In any case the paleo reconstructions for the rest of the globe for this period are wildly uncertain.”
Just like climate modelling in general? The modelling dreamers can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can they?
Wild uncertainty. Just the thing to justify spending billions of dollars!
“In any case the paleo reconstructions for the rest of the globe for this period are wildly uncertain.”
As are all paleo reconstructions.
In any case the paleo reconstructions for the rest of the globe for this period are wildly uncertain.
As are all paleo reconstructions. ”
Then why are you suddenly accepting paleo data from WUWT?
Perhaps because WUWT is telling you what you want to believe?
Yet you accept the paleo data presented at WUWT, perhaps because it supports claims you want to believe.
“As are all paleo reconstructions.”
So this is for a period back to 10 ky ago. Whereas the so called hockey stick period is only back 1 ky ago, which has been more intensely studied.
Not necessarily equally uncertain.
I have long been critical of paleo reconstructions. By everybody.
The paleo reconstructions for the rest of the globe for this period might be wildly uncertain. We don’t have anything else to work with.
Unless someone builds a time machine and goes back to measure the temperature there isn’t going to be anything else to work with.
Ken
” … might be wildly uncertain. ”
So you admit that with a superficial guessing, you discredit the work of people you never would ever be able to replicate, let alone to scientifically contradict.
That, Ken, is not reasoning: it is robertsoning.
Binny,
Which “people” are you referring to?
You can’t or won’t say, is that it?
Go on, name these “people”, and flesh out your bizarre ranting about “robertsoning”. Otherwise, you just look like a fanatical GHE cultist, wildly thrashing about trying to appear relevant!
Demonstrate your knowledge and describe the GHE. How hard can it be? Too hard for your anonymous “people”, obviously. Surely at least one has described this GHE? Just one?
Back to your graphs, Binny. Try using different coloured pencils – they might make the future clearer for you.
Vournas (cntnd)
And the most interesting in this graph is that it was NOT made by people denigrated by ‘skeptîc’s as alarmists, like e.g. the group around Marcott, but… by a fundamental ‘skeptîc’.
Here is the work of Marcott & alii:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Science – 8 Mar 2013 – Vol 339, Issue 6124 – pp. 1198-1201
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026
Behind paywall; a free version exists:
https://tinyurl.com/Marcott-temp-reconstr
Worth a mention is that they made a latitudinal split, see Fig. 2:
https://i.postimg.cc/j22WJpY1/Marcott-Global-Temperature-Reconstructed-Fig-2-IJK.png
Binny,
Yet another graph? Does this one predict the future?
Or does it support a mythical GHE which you can’t describe?
No, Flynnson…
Your reactions on the comments posted by others predict your future.
Binny,
Yet another graph? Does this one predict the future?
Or does it support a mythical GHE which you cant describe?
You say “No.”
So your graphs don’t predict the future, nor support a mythical GHE.
Why do you bother endlessly presenting the same data over and over, then?
Bindidon, what I say is – there is not any global +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
What you say here, you say with the same level of scientific knowledge and technical skill as Robertson when he talks about time:
zero point zero.
Vos ractions aux commentaires posts par dautres personnes prdisent votre avenir.
” Vos reactions aux commentaires postes par d’autres personnes predisent votre avenir. “
Aha
Vournas sets me on the same level as Flynnson:
– Xyz, please stop tr0lling
– Earth is cooling since 4.5 billion years
etc etc etc
Tens of thousands of scientists have been taught in Universities about the planet surface effective temperature – the EM energy Equilibrium temperature. It is the planet Blackbody Temperature theory.
–
Ok, it is observed, and it is measured, some of the incident EM energy is reflected.
–
The theory then assumes that EM energy, when hits surface is partly reflected and the rest, the not reflected portion of the incident EM energy, the rest of it is absorbed in the surface’s inner layers.
–
I argue that assump.tion, the rest of the not reflected EM energy is not entirely absorbed.
Only a small part is absorbed, the most part, in the process of EM/matter interaction, the most part is transformed into LW outgoing EM energy and is re-emitted to space.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only a small part is absorbed, the most part, in the process of EM/matter interaction, the most part is transformed into LW outgoing EM energy and is re-emitted to space.”
Once the surface reaches its equilibrium temperature that is true. The surface loses energy at the same rate as it arrives.
Gosh, Ent admits temperature affects absorp.tion!
Is he actually learning some physics, or did he just comment without knowing he’s violating cult beliefs?
Christos
You should read this. It is a fairly recent summary of energy flows through the climate system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
From that nonsense: “During 2005 to 2019 the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) averaged about 460 TW or globally 0.90 0.15 W per m2.”
* Energy does NOT have units of flux.
* Flux does NOT average.
* Any attempt to average flux must have incredibly huge error margin. Which makes claiming the bogus EEI accurate to two decimal places is ludicrous. But REAL scientists know you can’t average flux.
Thank you, Ent, for the important reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
“The energy budget also accounts for how energy moves through the climate system.”
The most of EM energy is SW reflected and LW emitted in the very instance of incidence.
Only a small part of incident solar energy is absorbed in inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only a small part of incident solar energy is absorbed in inner layers. ”
340W/m^2 reaches Earth from the Sun. About half of that, 169W/m^2 of shortwave radiation is absor.bed by the surface. Almost all of that is radiated, convected or evapotranspired so the net absorp.tion rate is about 0.2W/m^2.
That is about 10^22 Joules/year, which neatly matches the energy required to cause the observed ice melt, land warming and increasing ocean heat content.
“340W/m^2 reaches Earth from the Sun.”
1360 /4 = 340W/m^2
But we cannot average the perpendicular to the planet sros-section cycle the incoming solar flux of So =1360W/m^2 , because there is not either solar radiation, nor Albedo at the planet dark side area.
Ent continues to parrot his cult’s nonsense. He believes only 169 W/m² is absorbed by Earth’s surface! Yet he believes the surface emits 390 W/m².
It’s funny that he’s soooooo wrong, but it’s sad that he can’t learn.
Christos
1360 /4 = 340W/m^2
“But we cannot average the perpendicular to the planet sros-section cycle the incoming solar flux of So =1360W/m^2 , because there is not either solar radiation, nor Albedo at the planet dark side area. ”
Not a problem. Just accept that the solar flux and albedo on the night side of the Earth are zero. Then calculate the averages as usual.
Clint R
Pay attention.
Using figures from 2010 163.3W/m^2 is total shortwave absorbed sunlight. The surface also receives 340.3W/m^2 of longwave back radiation giving a total gross input of 503.6W/m^2.
The gross output from the surface is 104.8W/m^2 of convection and evapotranspiration and 398.2 W/m^2 of longwave radiation. A total of 503.0W/m^2.
The net absor.btion is 503.6 -503.0 = 0.6 W/m^2. Since there is a net input the surface is warming.
Ent,
“Not a problem. Just accept that the solar flux and albedo on the night side of the Earth are zero. Then calculate the averages as usual.”
–
Of course, I can do that.
But it is a mistaken theoretical thought experiment.
Solar EM energy doesn’t “go” to the planet dark-side area. It is the planet rotating, and, while rotating, there is always half of the globe faces the sun.
Solar energy interacts with the matter it is fallen on, solar energy doesn’t interact when the surface is out of view, when the surface is on the planet’s dark -side area.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Ent, the surface absorbs much more than 169 W/m². You’re finally starting to get it. But, you’re going against your cult, which is a good thing. Your cult believes the surface ONLY gets 169 W/m².
We’ll get you there. Reality always wins.
“Solar energy interacts with the matter it is fallen on”
More correctly, solar energy interacts with the matter it HAS fallen on.
It fell on the dark side 12 h earlier, and much of its warming effects are still there 12 h later, because the Earth and atmosphere have the ability to store thermal energy.
On and off heating is a common feature in technology.
My home or car heating system, my oven, rotisserie cooking of meat, all feature on-off heating.
And in each case the average heat flux over the on-off period gives a perfectly good means of finding the average temperature reached.
There is no science rationale to your objections to averaging.
An energy balance model is not a thought experiment, Christos.
The pile of bricks in the middle of your livingroom is in balance Willard. All you can do is claim but not demonstrate its not in balance.
I have no pile of bricks in my living room, Gill.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I argue that all is absorbed by the ocean.
And you can argue all day about the land surface, but it’s unimportant in term of global climate.
Ocean warms, land cools.
Land cools?
Since a few years, Northern CONUS and Southeast Canada are cooling, that’s correct.
But even Russia doesn’t belong to what you mean with land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mdiwTQugykGe3uI0cnNt8LoSZ9sP_Wx9/view
Maybe you have a look at Syria, Irak, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Niger, Tchad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenia, Zambia and a few other corners.
You give the impression of looking at the globe with the wrong end of the telescope..
Ocean warms and Land doesn’t warm, it cools.
Ocean average temperature is much warmer than land average temperature.
There is more ocean area, than land area. If Earth had more land area, it’s average global temperature would be colder. If Earth had more ocean area, Earth’s average temperature would be warmer.
Ocean covers 70% of planets surface, whatever surface {land or ocean] whatever has more the 50% of surface, controls global average temperature, with 70%, it controls it, more.
Tropical ocean surface is the world’s heat engine, if replaced with land, it would not be the world’s heat engine.
It’s almost like, that you guys don’t believe in the greenhouse effect.
Binny continues to show off his useless spaghetti graphs.
Monkey Man can’t keep his word.
Yea, I don’t care. I was being paranoid, and I blame society for being overly sensitive.
“Monkey Man”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What Monkey Man cares about or not matters little.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Monkeying Graham D. Warner does not honor you.
“Monkeying Graham D. Warner does not honor you.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 366.5 km/sec
density: 1.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 49
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 129 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Looking more like a solar grand min
The big sun activity ramp up thumpers are quiet lately
“Big sunspot AR3590 (circled) is returning after a two-week trip around the farside of the sun. Per tradition, it will be re-numbered for its next transit across the solar disk. ”
Solar wind
speed: 337.5 km/sec
density: 1.25 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 67
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
What is March total going to be?
At 90 so far Good chance of falling below the prediction line this month
https://i.postimg.cc/wjhLPfNJ/cycle25-prediction-focus.png
Eben gets excited about noise again.
With noise, what goes down comes back up.
But in the child-like mind of Eben, what goes down must stay down… because this time is different…he hopes….and dreams.
Maybe. But it appears it’s mind reading.
As far as me guessing.
Who thinks there will be double peak?
Or blue line seems to have peaked. Is April number going to turn it around?
I am guessing, it won’t.
And so my question, will there be a double peak?
Solar wind
speed: 304.4 km/sec
density: 7.21 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Mar 24
“A new and apparently complex sunspot group is emerging at the circled location. It poses a threat for strong M-class solar flares (based on the fact that M-flares were observed while it was still behind the sun’s eastern limb)”
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
6 numbered spots and circle location is not numbered yet.
[A numbered spot leaving and one is entering nearside.]
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.07×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
Newer, forecast
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
18 March – 13 April 2024
There is a chance for moderate (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) levels through
31 Mar, mainly due to the flare potential of Region 3614 (N16,
L=223, class/area Hax/080 on 17 Mar) and an unnumbered region
rotating onto the SE limb. Low levels with a slight chance of
M-class flares are likely on 01-13 Apr.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.”
3614 is new number of spot AR3590, not the “circle location” spot which hasn’t been given a number yet.
Solar wind
speed: 394.5 km/sec
density: 2.48 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 127
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.12×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
7 numbered sunspots.
Days before any go to farside, and I don’t see any coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 348.1 km/sec
density: 10.99 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 123
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.19×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
A spot coming from farside which will get number. But might lose a number.
So seven now, could become 8 numbered spot, or remain at 7.
And still couple days before spots start to leave to the farside.
Also got moderate size coronal hole, south of equator.
Solar wind
speed: 364.2 km/sec
density: 11.04 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
So, 7 numbered sunspots, but another spot not numbered yet, will make 8.
Meanwhile four numbered spot is getting close to going to farside.
So tomorrow get 8 and next day, get lower, than next day even lower sunspots, unless some grow in the big blank middle or a lot more come from farside.
Still seems possible March number gets near or thru the red line curve.
The Earth has never warmed as fast as it’s warming now: https://ibb.co/fFM7jjB
Cute!
When they grow up they’ll know the GHE is bogus.
There are millions of teachers teaching the obligatory “science” in all the schools around the world.
Two ad hominems, one less subtle than the other.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What is the average of chaos?
https://chaosbook.org/chapters/average.pdf
A strange attractor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
Willard: Your proof?
A good example is a pot of water being heated on a stove.
The local motions and local temperatures within the water at some point exhibit chaotic, unpredictable variations.
Yet the average temperature of the water in the pot rises fairly smoothly and predictably.
Christos, Clint,
Kuhn postulated that in the usual state of affairs there is general agreement to a group of core beliefs that structure peoples theories, thats a paradigm, and the work done within it he called normal science.
The current paradigm for climate change is the CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming theory.
If you want to change how the scientists think and what the teachers teach, you need a new paradigm.
You won’t get anyone to accept a new paradigm just by saying the evidence is wrong. You need to find a new idea which explains the existing evidence better than CO2 AGW does.
Thank you, Ent, for what you commented about new paradigm:
“The current paradigm for climate change is the CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming theory.
If you want to change how the scientists think and what the teachers teach, you need a new paradigm.”
–
–
I am inviting you, Ent, to visit my site.
I have a new paradigm, which thoroughly explains why the planet earth currently gets warmer.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Visited your site. Interested to see that I’m influencing your thinking.
There are a large number of points to discuus, far too many for one day.
I’ll start with your suggestion that rapidly rotating objects had a higher average temperature than those with slower rotation. In fact you are saying that bodies with a shorter mean solar day will be slightly warmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time
Since the mean solar day is determined by a combination of axial rotation and orbital motion you need to change your notation from rotation to mean solar day wherever you mention rotation.
You also need to recalculate all your graphs using mean solar day as your reference instead of rotation period.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Visited your site. Interested to see that Im influencing your thinking.
There are a large number of points to discuus, far too many for one day.
Ill start with your suggestion that rapidly rotating objects had a higher average temperature than those with slower rotation. In fact you are saying that bodies with a shorter mean solar day will be slightly warmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time
Since the mean solar day is determined by a combination of axial rotation and orbital motion you need to change your notation from rotation to mean solar day wherever you mention rotation.”
–
–
I am sorry, it is too late in Athens, I have to go.
“There are a large number of points to discuus, far too many for one day.”
Thank you for your help. Looking forward to continue tomorrow.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ent believes: “You won’t get anyone to accept a new paradigm just by saying the evidence is wrong. You need to find a new idea which explains the existing evidence better than CO2 AGW does.”
Ent, we can’t get cultists to accept reality. That’s a fact. And there’s no need to find an explanation for natural variability. All REAL Skeptics have to do is point out, from basic physics, that CO2 can NOT warm Earth’s surface.
And, that’s been done….
Ent,
“Since the mean solar day is determined by a combination of axial rotation and orbital motion you need to change your notation from rotation to mean solar day wherever you mention rotation.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time
Yes, I have changed it for planet Mercury, and for our Moon, because for those bodies the combination of axial rotation and orbital motion creates a significant difference to mean solar day.
For the rest planets and moons the combination of axial rotation and orbital motion doesn’t create a difference to mean solar day of some significance.
The difference, for the case of my research is very insignificant, ex-cep-t for the above mentioned planet Mercury and our Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon says:
March 16, 2024 at 2:46 AM
“Vournas
Do you remember your strange guess about Earth now slightly warming due to its current spatio-temporal position within the Milankovitch cycles?
https://tinyurl.com/Temps-10-Ky-to-present
While this graph (intentionally) distorts the last 1000 years due to the simple-minded Indonesia-Greenland average, it nevertheless shows that Earth is, on the global time scale, cooling.”
–
–
Thank you, Bindidon, for the very good and very interesting reference you provided.
–
Do you imply, Greenland at the (“very much warmer”) Holocene Optimum was free of ice land, and since then, because of yours – on the global time scale cooling,
because of yours cooling, Greenland has since Holocene Optimum, has acquired its 3,5 km high glaciers?
Is that what you, Bindidon, believe in?
Do you say 10000 years ago, Greenland was a free from ice land?
–
Well, Bindidon, the Greenland’s glaciers are there. The ice-core samples are there.
Do the ice-core samples chronology justify your claims, that what you imply is justified, that there were not glaciers on Greenland but only a free of ice land?
–
How much strange it is Bindidon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What’s the matter with you, Vournas?
” Is that what you, Bindidon, believe in?
Do you say 10000 years ago, Greenland was a free from ice land? ”
*
Nowhere will you find any place where you see that I would ever believe/say such nonsense.
Why do you insinuate such bullshit?
How many glasses retsina did you drink today?
Did you, or did you not referenced to the graph:
https://tinyurl.com/Temps-10-Ky-to-present
and you commented:
“While this graph (intentionally) distorts the last 1000 years due to the simple-minded Indonesia-Greenland average, it nevertheless shows that Earth is, on the global time scale, cooling.”
…it nevertheless shows that Earth is, on the global time scale, cooling.
Are those yours words, Bindidon?
How many glasses retsina did you drink today, Bindidon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas,
Bindidon is mentally flexible. He clearly stated that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not result in surface heating. He wrote previously –
“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.”
When he writes “nonsense”, such as “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” (his previous description of the GHE), his excuse is that he writes nonsense “unintentionally”. Possibly after I pointed out his GHE description was nonsensical, although Bindidon may have experienced a flash of reality all by himself.
So it looks like Bindidon accepts that the planet is cooling, as ChatGPT said – “The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.” (ChatGPT can’t describe the greenhouse effect, but no matter).
The fanatical GHE cultists refuse to describe the GHE, refuse to say what its effect is supposed to be, but claim that anthropogenic CO2 is heating the planet while it cools!
By magic, presumably. A spell presumably cast in the last couple of hundred years, although even the most ardent GHE proponent cannot say when, where, or by whom!
A deep mystery indeed.
” Did you, or did you not reference[d] to the graph:
https://tinyurl.com/Temps-10-Ky-to-present
Are those yours words, Bindidon? ”
Of course I did, and these were my words indeed.
Why are you unable to explain what is wrong in the graph?
Bindidon wrote above:
Stop small stalking and stalking, Hogle, and start finally working.
Ok.
Heres what I can show you:
Using the closest USCRN station, I collected monthly temperature data for maximums for October from the period of 2008-2016 (31 days * 9 years = 279 samples in total). I calculated the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile positions. From here, we can look at future Octobers and see which quartile or decile each day positions itself in.
We can look at the months data and better see the distribution of temperatures, and best of all, rather than losing information through averaging, we can see why a month would be warmer or colder.
We can get a far better detailed examination of temperature data using this method. We can better investigate the reasons behind intense cold snaps or heat waves; for example, regarding the period of warmer weather, did precipitation fall during this period or was it a dry, hot mass of air? The same thing goes for the cold front: was it dry or wet? The way these masses change is important to track because they also determine the climate.
Looking at the most recent October of 23, for example, well see that a warm, dry mass passed through the area bringing temperatures in the high 60s and low 70s, which position themselves in the 75th percentile, while a cold, wet mass followed through and brought temperatures in the low-40s, which position themselves in the 10th percentile. For the month overall, 12.9% of the data points were positioned in the 25th percentile, 32.3% of the data points were positioned in the 10th percentile, 12.9% of the data points were positioned in the 50th percentile, 3.2% of the data points were positioned in the 90th percentile, and 38.7% of the data points were positioned in the 75th percentile.
Here’s the data for the percentiles: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zMnFy264q5UUAShSheUNl59rt2iShieL_QyPOmkXG0o/edit?usp=sharing
> maximums for October
qltm
“qltm”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Pay attention –
“Looking at the most recent October of 23, for example”
*Giggles*.
“Mike Flynn”
How many Octobers do you think there should be? There is one every year, as far as I know. Do you think that some Octobers “should be” something else? Like some dills believe the Earth’s temperature “should be” something other than what it is?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m just as perplexed as Swenson is. I don’t understand what Willard finds funny. Maybe Willard is an insane person in a straight jacket. I’ve also contemplated the idea that he is a 7-year-old boy whose parents let him use the internet.
Monkey Man will have to work a little more to play dumb as well as Mike Flynn. But he’s a fast learner. I believe in him.
Willard,
I hope this is a valuable learning source for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZKlD4VoLLc
Monkey Man,
I prefer that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87P0G_9aK2c
Willard, please stop trolling.
Obviously, you do this for all Octobers and analyze what’s going on over time.
binny seems to think the atmosphere operates based on statistical theory. He claims the Moon rotates on its axis but I have never seen him explain how. He seems to think two a day temperatures averaged can give an accurate temperature for a region. You could not even get an accurate temperature for a room using one thermometer and reading it twice a day, never mind the atmosphere.
Monkey Man also believes that the Moon spins, Bordo.
Read harder.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Gordon. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to contemplate among trend0logists. They think they can determine the averaged state of the climate with statistics fit for non-linear and ordinary constructs.
The climate doesn’t operate on some set pattern; why is climate assessed over a period of time (days, months, years)? There are so many times when we have cold fronts that pass through the day, making the morning the warmest part of the day, and we also have days that stay around the same temperature throughout the entire 24-hour period, especially when it’s snowing, for example. The reason why our area has the best snow on Earth is that our dry climate minimizes melting and prevents snow from turning slushy. You lose that specific detail when averaging winter temperatures with other nearby states like Arizona or Colorado.
“fit for non-linear and ordinary constructs.”
*linear, not non-linear*
Walter,
It really doesn’t matter. Fanatical GHE cultists seem to believe that linear trends continue to infinity – with the result that, according to them, the seas will boil dry within the next few thousand years.
Just ask them when these “trends” are supposed to stop – then listen to the sound of silence!
They also seem to believe that the future state of a deterministic chaotic system can be predicted. Even the IPCC states that this is not possible.
Facts mean nothing to fanatical GHE cultists, who worship something they cannot describe, let alone specify what the operation of this mythical “effect” is supposed to achieve!
Heating? Cooling? Nothing at all?
Once again, listen to the sound of silence.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Fanatical GHE cultists”
You mean, like Monkey Man?
Willard, please stop tr0lling.
Funny how things change quickly, Monkey Man.
Is it because Charles refused to delete your comment?
Willard,
You are not being very nice.
Monkey Man,
I have no come here to bring peace.
Robertson cowârdly lying further and further
1. ” binny seems to think the atmosphere operates based on statistical theory. ”
This is a ridiculous lie, Robertson.
What I do has nothing to do with ‘statistical theory’.
I do with lots of climate data exactly the same as does the team around Roy Spencer and John Christy.
Like anyone else, the UAH team also collects huge amounts of raw, absolute data which are, source by source, converted into de-seasonalized departures from the mean of a reference period (i.e., anomalies), then averaged into grid cells, out of which regional, latitudinal or zonal subsets are finally averaged into latitude bands with subsequent latitude weighting.
*
You can discredit and denigrate what I do as long as you want, Robertson: anyone on the blog has read your recent, magnificent ‘élucubrations’ about wind and solar electricity production, and perfectly understands that you are the most ignorant pseudo-engineer imaginable.
*
Your cowârdice you best reveal when denigrating a graph like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
as unsupported and faked.
Not only would you never be able to replicate the work needed, though it’s trivial in comparison to
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
But you also permanently lack the balls to ask ‘Roy’ what he means about them.
Such behavior tells us a lot about you.
*
2. ” He claims the Moon rotates on its axis but I have never seen him explain how. ”
Either you are a permanent liar, or you heavily suffer under Alzheimer: I have provided for years detailed explanations about how Tobias Mayer computed the lunar spin period and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic, by translating pieces of his treatise into English.
But you couldn’t understand any of this because you chose to a priori reject it with incredibly arrogant answers: it didn’t fit your egomaniacal, unscientific narrative.
*
By the way, Robertson: did you notice that neither RLH nor Eben nor Ken nor even Hogle doubt the lunar spin’s reality?
How many people do agree to your nonsense, apart from the usual ball-on-a-string gang – Clint R, Dremt, the Hunter boy?
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
“Anyone who credulously believes Robertsons trash 100% deserves it.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Oh, apologies, Flynnsonito!
I forgot to add you in the list of the lunar spin deniers.
Cela n’arrivera plus, promis!
“Oh, apologies, Flynnsonito!
I forgot to add you in the list of the lunar spin deniers.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Hogle
Respect for the work done.
But this has in my opinion few to do with climate, much more with local meteorology and derived micro-climatic aspects, as is visible when you write in a post below:
” You lose that specific detail when averaging winter temperatures with other nearby states like Arizona or Colorado. ”
Moreover, you reduced your view on the USCRN station to a strangely defined segment of what you actually could observe:
” … monthly temperature data for maximums for October from the period of 2008-2016… “.
Whether or not it was your intention, you give the impression to have deliberately chosen a period best fitting what you wanted to show.
And then you further write:
” We can look at the months data and better see the distribution of temperatures, and best of all, rather than losing information through averaging, we can see why a month would be warmer or colder. ”
What else than averaging did you use? USCRN data exist in subhourly, hourly and daily variants as well; the data you use is no more than the twofold average, station by station, of subhourly via daily to monthly data.
{ I have on disk a complete USCRN time series of all daily data I built out of hourly (min+max/2, median, 24h average) from all stations for the entire period from 2002 till now (over 850,000 days): but it is of few help to me, expect when having to filter and/or sort it according to some criteria. I guess you’d do more out of it than me. }
*
All the time you reject averages and anomalies, but surprisingly you have no problem with UAH which doesn’t show any absolute data, nor in using UAH’s North pole time series whenever you want to show how good it explains things which matter to you.
Do you really not know how many averaging and anomaly construction subtasks are necessary to obtain this ‘NoPol’ time series?
Looks like this:
– separate averaging and deseasonalizing of different absolute satellite sources, giving anonalies stored into grid cells;
– averaging of grid cells into latitude bands;
and finally
– latitude weighting of the latitude bands, giving as result the anomaly for the month currently processed.
*
Sorry: your aversion against averaging and deseasonalizing (absolute data to anomalies) is one-sided, inconsistent and makes no sense.
I suspect you to on the one hand use this aversion to discredit surface temperature data processing, while on the other hand living perfectly with these same concepts in the processing of satellite-borne data.
*
Your choice.
*
I think you are completely unaware of what I do, and why.
You seem to identify me with alarmists who spend their time in trying to link CO2 to the global warming. I have nothing to do with that.
I can work very locally – in time and space – e.g. when having to compare the daily behavior of two latitudinally distant USCRN stations (differences between mean, median and 24h average).
I can work globally – e.g. when trying to contradict the unscientific claim that tide gauge trends and satellite altimetry trends would be incompatible, what is wrong.
You do what you want, Hogle, and I do what I want.
The point is, if I’m losing detail by averaging temperatures from states in my region, I’m certainly going to lose a lot of information when averaging temperatures from all around the globe. I only processed data from one month and one station because this process is time-consuming. You mess up once, and you have to start all over. You can’t be overly meticulous.
Regarding what you said about my special treatment of satellite temperatures versus surface temperatures, I am simply scrutinizing the arguments at hand. I don’t have to endorse any specific position. It would get very boring if I only chose to talk about averaging.
I am aware that USCRN daily data is calculated from hourly averages, but it’s the best data we have, and something is better than nothing. We’ll never be able to draw conclusions with complete certainty.
“You do what you want, Hogle, and I do what I want.”
Your loss. I recall you mentioning you are over the age of 70; shouldn’t time be more cherished and not taken for granted? Why close yourself off to better knowledge and understanding?
> if Im losing detail by averaging temperatures from states in my region,
The Meteorological Fallacy, in a nutshell.
And then Monkey Man wonders why I come here…
No, if there is an error, it would be associated with improper statistical knowledge (i.e., whether averaging reduces variance with more averages), not meteorological. Willard is a monkey.
Hogle
” I am aware that USCRN daily data is calculated from hourly averages, but it’s the best data we have, and something is better than nothing. We’ll never be able to draw conclusions with complete certainty. ”
1. Why do you constantly ignore UAH’s uncertainties in the discussion? Even WUWT’s uncertainty mafioso Karlomonte could tell you a lot about the uncertainties he discovered in UAH’s data construction process.
2. How can you criticize the construction of anomalies out of the multiple average of ~ 1,000 GHCN daily stations, when
– it is done with the same methods as for USCRN and UAH
AND
– gives so amazingly similar results?
Again and again: look at the results obtained for the Corn Belt (a few millions of km^2), what looks like something between a couple of local stations around you and the Globe as a whole.
*
1. Comparison to USCRN (cascaded running means)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1golQNz9leZvUq20BlozyMkvn55R_YqGW/view
with a zoom into the chart’s beginning (simple running means)
::
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10b-ERnbhy0uDrAz_NQQz8lcTZx1II2dS/view
*
2. Comparison to UAH 6.0 LT (cascaded running means)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuYJQZOx_MUDbtSJwfKSsNRHEufp777G/view
with a zoom into the chart’s beginning (simple running means)
:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1KAor-ctBcgXslPEWjiCZ3RmIBm8qOJ/view
*
Your one-sided claims that only surface stations are the major problem when compared to satellite-based measurements are simply disturbing and unscientific.
What is the difference between your illogical behavior and the lunar spin deniers’ claims that our Moon cannot rotate on its polar axis because we always see the same side of it?
None.
**
Finally, without being in the least surprised, I look at your strange admonition:
” Your loss. I recall you mentioning you are over the age of 70; shouldnt time be more cherished and not taken for granted? Why close yourself off to better knowledge and understanding? ”
*
I would understand your condescending tone if you were able to technically contradict all what I do; but, in fact, Hogle, you are far, far away from being able to do that.
But I have a feeling you won’t be willing to turn away from such tones.
So what!
Earlier, Entropic Man attempted to pervert the scientific method by writing –
“The current paradigm for climate change is the CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming theory.”
Well no, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. There is no “anthropogenic global warming theory”. Entropic Man cannot say what such a theory would look like, because the idea of CO2 warming a planet is ludicrous.
He cannot even describe the mythical GHE, which seems to be at the core of his thinking (although he won’t admit to the presence of a GHE, much less say what it is supposed to do).
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. It is not hotter than it should be, nor colder than it should be. It is precisely what it is, no more and no less.
Luckily for us as humans, who probably evolved to suit present conditions.
Entropic man is a monkey.
Monkey Man ought to honor his word.
Ok, Willard.
“Monkey Man”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
If Monkey Man does not honor his word, he’ll be treated as the sock puppets here and other antisocial chaps.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“If Monkey Man does not honor his word, hell be treated as the sock puppets here and other antisocial chaps.”
Well, I’m sure that a threat from someone as sublimely inept, incompetent, and impotent, as yourself, will have him quaking in his boots – in your strange fantasy world, that is.
Do you have delusions of grandeur? Do you imagine yourself as a mass debater, rather than a masturbator? Oh dear, you donkey, about the only person likely to value your opinion is somebody even lower down the authority scale than you. I doubt there are too many of those individuals – certainly none who would own up to their status.
So carry on carrying on – it’s diverting to see you trying to ape your betters. You do realise that bananas absorb and emit infrared radiation, do you? They also emit gamma rays (being radioactive), so maybe eating too many has affected your brain.
I will decide what I do online, just like you decide what you do. I’ll probably take a break soon, if that makes you happy. I do have to be careful about what I say, but my opinion is my opinion; who cares about it? It’s hard to know what constitutes as an offensive comment versus someone’s opinion about sensitive matters these days. I’ll leave it at that; I will not address that matter anymore.
Monkey Man can decide whatever he wants. After all, he is his own little man. Under a trenchcoat, it usually takes two anyway.
Readers can decide to judge his behavior accordingly.
Wiltard- Pride, Anger, Envy and Sloth. And, Oh yes, Hubris.
Troglodyte is like QAnon:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lara-trump-hire-scott-presler-rnc-1234988696/
All about LOVE.
“Troglodyte is like QAnon:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Readers can decide to judge his behavior accordingly.”
There you go, Willard. If you spout enough incomprehensible gibberish, eventually you might inadvertently say something truthful.
Well done, laddie!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
There you go.
Was there something you had difficulties understanding once again?
“Readers can decide to judge his behavior accordingly.”
There you go, Willard. If you spout enough incomprehensible gibberish, eventually you might inadvertently say something truthful.
Well done, laddie!
Mike Flynn,
Just as Roy told you:
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
What are you braying about?
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Just as Roy told you: . . . ”
Has Dr Spencer appointed you his hall monitor, or are you just making a pathetic attempt at manipulating Dr Spencer to do your bidding?
Have you managed to convince Dr Spencer to adopt your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, yet?
Oh dear, Willard, are your incompetence and impotence showing?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Just as Roy told you:
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
To paraphrase Thomas Henry Huxley
“I would not be ashamed to have a monkey for my ancestor, but would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth”
Sounds pretty good.
Wonder if Huxley was referring to his mentor, Charles Darwin.
Actually be was referring to Bishop Wilberforce.
from Ent via Swenson…The current paradigm for climate change is the CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming theory.
***
Ent left out an important part…the current ***climate alarmist*** paradigm for climate change….”. The anthropogenic theory is not a paradigm because it is not a theory embraced by all, only climate alarmists and a biased media.
Bordo just implied that Roy was an alarmist.
Things are going great for our cranks!
Hey, a**hole, you are a guest here, leave Roy out of this you creep.
Roy believes in AGW, Bordo.
He showed you and other deniers the door many years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Sky Dragon cranks are not welcome here.
Weary Wee Willy,
“Roy believes in AGW, Bordo.”
I’m not sure that Dr Spencer needs someone like you to tell him what he believes in. Obviously, increased temperatures are due to increased heat.
Are you trying to imply that Dr Spencer believes in some magical effect which nobody at all can describe?
That would make you about as stupid a GHE cultist as they come! Just how stupid are you, Willard?
Mike Flynn,
I was responding to Bordo, not to Roy.
What are you braying about?
Weary Wee Willy,
“Roy believes in AGW, Bordo.”
Im not sure that Dr Spencer needs someone like you to tell him what he believes in. Obviously, increased temperatures are due to increased heat.
Are you trying to imply that Dr Spencer believes in some magical effect which nobody at all can describe?
That would make you about as stupid a GHE cultist as they come! Just how stupid are you, Willard?
Why should I be concerned about your silly comment “I was responding to Bordo, not to Roy.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Since you insist in playing dumb, here’s what Roy told you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Please, do continue to play dumb.
Weary Wee Willy,
“Roy believes in AGW, Bordo.”
I!m not sure that Dr Spencer needs someone like you to tell him what he believes in. Obviously, increased temperatures are due to increased heat.
Are you trying to imply that Dr Spencer believes in some magical effect which nobody at all can describe?
That would make you about as stupid a GHE cultist as they come! Just how stupid are you, Willard?
Why should I be concerned about your silly comment “I was responding to Bordo, not to Roy.”
You compound your silliness by saying “Mike Flynn,
Since you insist in playing dumb, heres what Roy told you: . . . ”
Oh dear, Willard, have you appointed yourself Dr Spencer’s guardian? Are you really, really, sure he needs you to run his blog for him? You never know, he might assign the same value to your opinions as I do – zero (apart from their amusement value).
Willard, please stop trolling .
Mike Flynn,
Here is Roy and you in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Please, do continue to play dumb.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Since you insist in playing dumb, heres what Roy told you: . . . “.
And? Are you trying to say something useful?
Oh well, it’s your time, and you are free to waste it in any fashion you desire. It’s worth nothing anyway, so neither you nor anybody else is any the worse off.
Have you come up with a better description of the GHE than “not cooling, slower cooling” yet? Is “Roy” (I assume that you mean Dr Spencer, but are trying to be gratuitously offensive) impressed?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
You disappeared for a while after that comment. And then you came back under various sock puppets.
Please, do continue to play dumb.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Since you insist in playing dumb, heres what Roy told you: . . . “.
And? Are you trying to say something useful?
Oh well, its your time, and you are free to waste it in any fashion you desire. Its worth nothing anyway, so neither you nor anybody else is any the worse off.
Have you come up with a better description of the GHE than “not cooling, slower cooling” yet? Is “Roy” (I assume that you mean Dr Spencer, but are trying to be gratuitously offensive) impressed?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”Kuhn postulated that in the usual state of affairs there is general agreement to a group of core beliefs that structure peoples theories, thats a paradigm, and the work done within it he called normal science.
The current paradigm for climate change is the CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming theory”.
***
Let’s not confuse Kuhn’s work on paradigms with the attempted anthropogenic paradigm. Kuhn’s work criticized the use of paradigms as being detrimental to science. That’s exactly what the anthropogenic theory is doing to science, imposing consensus in an attempt to subvert accepted science.
> Kuhns work criticized the use of paradigms as being detrimental to science.
No, he did not.
“No, he did not.” – and it makes precisely no difference to a single fact.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Facts stand on their own. What Bordo said does not.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is final – Earth is warmer than Moon, because of the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On this date in 1958, Vanguard 1 was launched. It’s still up there: Although communications with the satellite were lost in 1964, it remains the oldest human-made object still in orbit, together with the upper stage of its launch vehicle.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_1
The Collapse of Russian Arms Exports – Competitors, Ukraine & The Future of Russian Exports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdap15tWnfI
This might seem very obvious.
One might wonder who is filling the vacuum.
It suggests to me {a bit surprisingly} that Joe Biden leadership has been very good to US arms export market.
Next video:
Everyday Astronaut on SpaceX’s Starship!
Ellie in Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Qu_ZGSxdk
Take away, there a lot space nerds.
And Dear Moon.
But no guess of when. But I guess more than 1 year from now.
Another video by a Pommie nob.
I think she would rather be known a wannabe Space Cadet.
It great time to be a Space Cadet.
Sláinte!
And a happy St Patrick’s Day to you too.
Putting St. Patrick’s Day in the middle of Lent is pure Celtic genius.
It’s like a seventh-inning stretch for Catholics.
Mothers Day too. Both give my wife a day’s relief from giving up chocolate.
It’s not relevant to me. I gave up Christianity for Lent decades ago and it felt so good that I extended it all year.
troubleshooting post…
A good Canadian persecuted by the Canadian government…
https://www.freepolitik.com/p/randy-hillier-canadian-hero-at-international?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-819f8a95-27e1-42af-9bdd-eb2e86220f6e
his crimes…leading protests against covid propaganda and allegedly assaulting a police officer. The assault charge came from him opening a police barricade to allow protesters onto Capitol Hill, In Ottawa.
wee willy…”He showed you and other deniers the door many years ago:”
***
I have never been banned and neither was Mike Flynn. Don’t know what you are braying about.
A quote from Roy in the UAH 33 year report…
“What it doesnt do is tell scientists how much of the remaining warming is due to natural climate cycles (not including volcanoes) versus humanitys carbon dioxide emissions enhancing Earths natural greenhouse effect.
That is the Holy Grail of climatology, said Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, a former NASA scientist and Christys partner in the satellite thermometer project for more than 20 years. How much of that underlying trend is due to greenhouse gases? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically.
Roy on AGW…”…that view cannot be proved scientifically”.
That’s all we skeptics are claiming, there is no scientific proof that a trace gas is warming the atmosphere. Roy disagrees with some of us on the greenhouse effect. That’s small potatoes, Roy’s head and heart are in the right place.
> I have never been banned
You still have been shown the door by Roy, bozo.
Willard is just as impotent as ever. Maybe somebody will value Willard’s opinion, somewhere, sometime. Apparently, not here and not now.
[laughing at inept whinger]
Mike Flynn,
You seem to be under the impression that your braying is making sense.
Why is that?
Willard is just as impotent as ever. Maybe somebody will value Willards opinion, somewhere, sometime. Apparently, not here and not now.
[laughing at inept whinger]
Mike Flynn,
You seem to be under the impression that your braying is making sense.
Why is that?
Willard is just as impotent as ever. Maybe somebody will value Willards opinion, somewhere, sometime. Apparently, not here and not now.
[laughing at inept whinger]
Maybe somebody will value Swenson’s opinion, somewhere, sometime. Apparently, not here and not now.
is literally how most readers feel after reading a Swenson post.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Just as Roy told you:
“[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
What are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Just as Roy told you:
[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny van der klown…
“What I do has nothing to do with statistical theory.
I do with lots of climate data exactly the same as does the team around Roy Spencer and John Christy”.
***
Talk about daloosions. Roy and John work with complex real data straight from NOAA satellites. All I have seen you do is cherry-pick data from from the fudged NOAA and NASA GISS databases and apply it statistically, albeit incorrectly.
—
“I have provided for years detailed explanations about how Tobias Mayer computed the lunar spin period and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Eclip.tic, by translating pieces of his treatise into English”.
***
“I have still to read anything from Mayer that specifically addresses lunar spin. What he is addressing is lunar libration which has nothing to do with local rotation.
—
“By the way, Robertson: did you notice that neither RLH nor Eben nor Ken nor even Hogle doubt the lunar spins reality?”.
I have challenged Richard to write with more detail re his notion on lunar rotation. Thus far he has only repeated his mantra…’A ball on a string has nothing to do with lunar spin’. He obviously does no want to engage in the debate so I leave him in peace.
I have no issues with Eben and the only comments I have seen from him re the Moon were short witticisms that I took with humour.
Ken lives on a planet of his own. He argued that the Moon orbits the Sun, even though the Wiki article he cited as proof claims it orbits the Earth.
I have never heard Walter comment on the Moon’s properties. I have no problem with Walter either.
My problem is with you. Here you are extending your appeal to authority to an appeal to posters in this blog.
“I have challenged Richard to write with more detail re his notion on lunar rotation.”
I see no reason to change from the accepted view, that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Gordon
“Ken lives on a planet of his own. He argued that the Moon orbits the Sun, even though the Wiki article he cited as proof claims it orbits the Earth. ”
Congratulations on your latest step further from reality.
For the record
The Moon orbits the Earth-Moon barycentre.
The Earth-Moon barycentre orbits the Sun.
Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun.
For some reason, Ent likes to demonstrate his ignorance of orbital motions. He has learned that Earth and Moon have a barycenter, but he can’t understand that Earth, Moon, and Sun would then also have a barycenter.
He’s also the one that claims passenger jets fly backward, to further demonstrate his ignorance of the science.
Moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits Sun, but Moon does NOT orbit Sun. Moon is contained within Earth’s gravitational field, and Earth is maintained within Sun’s gravitational field.
As expected, Robertson continues his eternal lying.
” Roy and John work with complex real data straight from NOAA satellites. All I have seen you do is cherry-pick data from from the fudged NOAA and NASA GISS databases and apply it statistically, albeit incorrectly.
Since he is completely incapable of understanding, let alone contradicting, what I do, he can only resort to polemically discrediting it.
*
Next lie:
” I have still to read anything from Mayer that specifically addresses lunar spin. What he is addressing is lunar libration which has nothing to do with local rotation. ”
He has been shown so many times that Mayer didn’t have anything in mind with libration: this word appears only once in the treatise’s 130 pages:
https://tinyurl.com/Mayer-libration
Text in English
” Finally, Domenico Cassini came on the right track. He had the idea to explain Moon’s libration through its rotation about its axis. ”
In January of this year, the liar Robertson wrote:
” 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. ”
Here is the translation of the treatises title and chapter headings:
http://tinyurl.com/3cxvz9p6
*
Next lie:
” I have never heard Walter comment on the Moons properties. ”
If Hogle is honest enough, he may confirm to have agreed to the lunar spin. I don’t want to wast my time in finding out where he did; but… he definitely knows.
*
Not the lunar spin matters here: it is of infinitesimal relevance.
What matters is Robertson’s endlessly repeated lies on this blog about anything.
You can contradict him as often as you want: after a while, he restarts from scratch as if you never had contradicted him.
Robertson reminds me my lady Rose’s uncle Kurt who over a decade ago behaved exactly like him, by repeating all the time his egomaniacal opinions despite being contradicted each time.
Kurt is now over 80, has stopped speaking and looks aggressively through us into the distance as if we weren’t there.
Final state of a long Alzheimer period: probably Robertson’s more or less near future.
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertsons trash 100% deserves it.
“Next lie: . . . ”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Once again, Binny raves on about Mayer and lunar spin. I have yet to see any extensive explanation of lunar spin by Mayer.
Apparently, Mayer leaned on the Math of Euler, who converted the Newton equation f = ma into a partial differential equation form with forces acting along the 3 axes of a 3-D co-ordinate system. The major problem here is that f = ma applies only if a force can accelerate a body and that is not the case with the Moon at its altitude above the Earth.
At the distance of the Moon, Earth’s gravitational force can barely move the Moon 5 metres for every 8000 metres of tangential motion. That can hardly be described as acceleration therefore Euler’s equation do not apply, and Mayer was wrong to use them.
What they are clearly missing is the effect of the Moon’s considerable linear momentum, which keeps the Moon in orbit, essentially cancelling the vertical acceleration produced by gravity. There is no reference to tangential momentum in either the Euler or Mayer work.
> I have yet to see any
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Apparently, Mayer leaned on the Math of Euler, who converted the Newton equation f = ma into a partial differential equation form with forces acting along the 3 axes of a 3-D co-ordinate system. The major problem here is that f = ma applies only if a force can accelerate a body and that is not the case with the Moon at its altitude above the Earth. ”
This is unimaginable. Robertson never managed to understand anything of Mayer’s treatise – no wonder: the German of 1750 is lexically and syntactically too distant for people who don’t even understand contemporary German.
The word ‘Euler’ doesn’t appear even once in Mayer’s lunar spin treatise, let alone did Mayer use Newton to calculate anything in the near of Moon’s rotation about its polar axis.
But… that doesn’t stop the arrogant Robertson from making up things to fit his egotistical narrative.
*
Furthermore: why discuss with a guy whose sole knowledge about Newton is the equation ‘f = m a’, absolutely irrelevant in the context of astronomy?
I tried months ago to explain him that this wonderful equation is if NO USE in the orbit/spin context.
Robertson does not understand that only Newton’s GRAVITY equation matters here, which of course was extensively used by Tobias Mayer – but only for the proof that Moon’s shape is of sufficient sphericity to allow for use of spherical trigonometry when computing arcs and angles of Moon’s surface.
*
Let alone was he able to understand the difference between Newton’s and Einstein’s formulae, which is zero on Earth, first begins to matter in the near of our Sun, and really comes into play when masses or speeds reach ‘astronomical’ amounts, like in the near of huge stars or… within synchrotrons, n’est-ce pas, galloping camel?
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
“That can hardly be described as acceleration”
Oh well, I guess Newton got the whole gravity thang wrong!
“Oh well, I guess Newton got the whole gravity thang wrong!”
Really? I thought Newton described the force of gravity fairly well, in Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Maybe you can describe the mythical GHE?
Only joking, you’re just trolling, aren’t you?
“Really? I thought..” There’s your mistake.
Nate, please stop trolling.
norman…”YOU: With EM, there is no heat being transferred since EM is defined as an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, and it has a frequency.
You can claim heat is not EM, fine. You are totally wrong to say that heat is not transferred by EM. It may not be heat but it certainly transfers it quite well”.
***
Let me try to dumb this down enough so that even Norman can get it. Heat is related to atoms and without them, heat cannot exist. The space between Earth and Sun is literally devoid of atoms, therefore heat cannot exist in that space. Anything inserted into that space, however, can be heated, provided it can absorb EM from the Sun, a process that affects the atoms in that body, causing its temperature to rise. That heat energy is new heat and has nothing to do …as heat…with the thermal energy on the Sun.
A heat transfer involves the transfer of heat, as energy, from one body to another. The heat in a source body is an indication of the energy related to atomic motion in that body. However, as Clausius pointed out, it is more. In any body there is free heat and the mechanical energy of atomic vibration, which is work. He claimed that internal energy = internal free heat + internal work.
Free heat will raise the temperature of a body on its own and a byproduct is the increased vibration of atoms in the body. Temperature, as recorded by a thermometer, is a measure of the kinetic energy (heat) that drives the vibrations.
The point us, we have no idea what energy is, never mind thermal energy. It is ‘something’, in the case of heat, that causes atoms to vibrate harder.
The related law, the 1st law of thermodynamics, is stated as U = Q + W. That means the internal energy of a body is in balance with external heat and work related to the body. However, Clausius took it further by breaking U down into internal heat plus internal work.
Although Clausius is credited with U in the first law, he was talked about breaking U down into its component energies of heat and work. Thompson talked him into referring to both as a generic energy. As a result, Thompson mislead later scientists into thinking U is a mysterious generic energy whereas Clausius had defined it as a sum of internal heat and work.
That internal energy can only exist in a mass of atoms. If a portion of it is converted to electromagnetic energy, it no longer exists as heat. EM has none of the properties of heat, or vice versa. Heat requires mass and EM has no mass; EM has a frequency and heat does not. Heat and EM have nothing in common as energies.
Therefore, it is not possible to transfer heat…as heat… between bodies via radiation. The net result may appear to be a transfer of heat but that is an illusion. One might claim it is a transfer of energy, but that is too murky for me. I want to know what kind of energy is being transferred. That is important when it comes to the GHE an AGW. It is far too easy to explain either theory using bad science.
Gordo repeated another version of his usual rant, writing:
Gordo, generations of engineers have accepted your so-called “illusion” as proven fact because it works. Get over it.
Then he writes:
For the twin issues of GHE and AGW, it’s called Thermal Infrared Energy, i.e., the EM energy emitted or absorbed by a solid or gas at temperatures experienced within the atmosphere or on the surface of the Earth.
Gordon rightfully comments: “it is not possible to transfer heat … as heat … between bodies via radiation” across a vacuum.
and to think apparently the same Gordon just last month commented: “(Clausius) claimed that heat transfer via radiation …”
Gordon has advanced a long way in just a month to the understanding heat is just a measure of a material object’s total thermodynamic internal energy with no physical corporeal existence to transfer as proved experimentally by James Prescott Joule.
Now Gordon should make another advancement to understand that since it is not possible to transfer heat … as heat between bodies that EMR does go both ways between bodies in a vacuum to comply with 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
The thermodynamic definition of “heat” is: The transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”.
Ball4 and Gordon, like most of the cult, have never studied thermo.
Of course, under Clint’s definition of heat then the transfer of enough water ice cubes of energy (being hot compared to cold dry ice cubes) into my cold coffee would add energy to my coffee thus heating it to enjoy. What do you know, Clint finally confirms adding enough ice cubes can boil water. Good job, Clint.
Ball4 and Gordon, like most of the cult, have never studied thermo.
Ball4 doesn’t even understand “hot” and “cold”.
Clint doesn’t understand water ice is hot when dry ice is cold; Clint R humorously has trouble understanding much of even basic science.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Clint doesnt understand water ice is hot when dry ice is cold;”
To someone who doesn’t understand physics (like you) your answer might appear to make sense.
However, after Lord Kelvin proposed that everything above absolute zero had a degree of hotness (temperature), your simplistic statement is exposed as scientific nonsense. Water ice can be exactly the same temperature as dry ice (frozen CO2), but not vice versa.
You still can’t boil water with the radiation emitted by either water ice or dry ice.
You are confused, as usual. Maybe you could make some more bizarre claims, and back them up with the twisted contents of your fertile imagination!
Carry on.
So, Swenson still can’t understand how increasing the thermodynamic internal energy of water at 1 atm. will make the water boil. Nor that 10K is not anywhere near “hotness”. It’s a real pity.
“So, Swenson still cant understand how increasing the thermodynamic internal energy of water at 1 atm. will make the water boil. Nor that 10K is not anywhere near hotness. Its a real pity.”
Irrelevant babbling is not helping you to look intelligent.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Heat exists in material bodies. It is the way energy (whatever it is) expresses itself.
Heat does not go out of material bodies. The emitted EM energy is not heat.
When EM energy hits matter, in the interaction process some of the incident EM energy gets transformed into heat, but not all of it.
When interacting with matter some of the EM energy gets reflected.
Does heat ever get reflected? No. It is the EM energy which gets reflected.
Does heat ever get emitted? NO. It is the EM energy which gets emitted.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Heat exists in material bodies. It is the way energy (whatever it is) expresses itself”.
***
More specifically, heat is the energy associated with atomic motion. In other words, heat is the energy that causes atoms to move or vibrate. It follows that without atoms, there can be no heat. EM has no mass, or atoms.
Clausius described heat circa 1850 as the ‘vis viva’ of atomic motion. Today, we call vis viva, ‘kinetic energy’. However, KE does not describe the type of energy, only that the energy is in motion. With atomic motion, that energy is called heat, or thermal energy.
You confirmed in the past that the English word thermal comes from the Greek word ‘therme’, which also means heat in Greek. Therefore, thermal means heat.
Thermal energy, aka heat, has nothing in common with electromagnetic energy. As you said, a change of energy from one form to another is required to convert EM to heat.
Even at that, the transformation is not direct. In order to convert EM to heat, an electron in an atom must first absorb the EM and jump to a higher energy orbital. Therefore, it is the electron that transforms EM to heat by absorbing it and increasing its kinetic energy, which is heat.
In summary, EM cannot be converted directly to heat, or vice-versa, without an intermediate process enabling it.
Very well, Christos 3:29 pm. Now you understand what happens to the earthen atm. emitted LW (at terrestrial temperatures) EM energy that is incident on the land and ocean surface. The measured LW reflectivity is about .03 for both global land & ocean surface horizon to horizon. Thus the remaining incident atm. EM energy is transformed into heat (since earth is opaque transmissivity is 0.0) for measured land and ocean emissivity of about 0.97.
Where is this incident atm. LW EM energy transformed into heat accounted for in your 1LOT energy balance formula? You already have accounted for the incident SW EM energy net of albedo transformed into heat.
Ball4,
“Where is this incident atm. LW EM energy transformed into heat accounted for in your 1LOT energy balance formula?”
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
And a quite incomprehensible one at that.
Try communicating in English when you provide the answer to your own question.
Or not, as you wish.
Sure, I understand why it’s incomprehensible to Swenson. Hopefully not Christos & we may even find out.
Ball4, you are claiming that you understand something.
What would that be? Based on what – your non-existent mindreading abilities, or the contents of your bizarre fantasy?
[what a strange imaginary world Ball4 must live in]
“Heat exists in material bodies. It is the way energy (whatever it is) expresses itself.
Heat does not go out of material bodies. The emitted EM energy is not heat.”
Christos, if you want to use the opposite definition of HEAT that science does, that is up to you, but if you want to communicate effectively with others doing science-it makes no sense to use opposite definitions.
“heat
A form of energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interaction.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_physics#H
“Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
Nate 4:25 am, James Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved heat does not exist in an object. Clausius accepted those experiments and used a defn. of heat completely different than your authors.
Someone should ask those non-science authors (a dictionary is not a science book & and wiki is always suspect) how something not existing in object could transfer out of that object to start non-existence in another object. And, no, heat does not flash into existence right at the border & then flash out of existence, that’s fantasy.
Those two authors should read Clausius’ work and adopt the expert’s definition of heat: heat is just a measure of the object’s constituent total vis viva.
Ball4,
You wrote “And, no, heat does not flash into existence right at the border & then flash out of existence, thats fantasy.”
I see, “heat is just a measure of the objects constituent total vis viva.”, is it?
The Earth has demonstrably cooled, yet you say the “heat” doesn’t just “flash” (whatever that means) “out of existence”. All well and good, but a vacuum by definition is the perfect non-object, isn’t it? No constituent total vis-viva, no heat. Where did it go?
Maybe you could employ a psychic and delve into a dead physicist’s mind.
Let me know how you get on. Ask the question “What happens to the heat lost by a celestial body in space?”
Only joking, Clausius knew nothing of modern physics. But like Carnot’s belief in non-existent “caloric” it didn’t stop him having deep insights into nature. Unlike a nutter like you.
Well sorry, that is the definition.
Thermal energy inside a body is called Internal energy.
“Well sorry, that is the definition.”
Some fanatical GHE cultists define “slow cooling” as “getting hotter”.
You can define CO2 to have magical heating properties, if you like.. It won’t give CO2 magical heating properties, will it?
Whats that buzzing sound?
“just a measure of the objects constituent total vis viva.”
Doesnt work except for ideal gases. Because some heat goes into raising potential energy.
For that 3:20 am event to happen means heat exists in some object for “heat goes into” from somewhere else. No. Joule experimentally ruled that out.
In nature, energy transforms constantly.
Heat can be transformed into work for example. And didnt Clausius talk about ‘interior work’?
I also don’t get how you can say “since it is not possible to transfer heat” and then also saying:
“And, no, heat does not flash into existence right at the border & then flash out of existence, thats fantasy.”
These statements don’t appear to be consistent.
Interior work is discussed in the context of PV changes. So many different defn.s of heat exist, not worth the time to keep track of them; those are just a couple. Clausius’ defn. is all that is ever useful.
“Clausius defn. is all that is ever useful.”
To you perhaps, but not to everyone else.
What about the contradictions mentioned above?
Clausius defn. of heat is consistent with Joule’s long-ago experiments. Any other defn. should also be physically consistent with those experiments & useful but many are not. Perhaps Nate can go further into a physical contradiction than just “don’t appear to be consistent”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651219
are the inconsistencies.
“Clausius defn. of heat is consistent with Joules long-ago experiments.”
What is his definition of heat?
Joules experiments are consistent with the modern definition of heat and 1LOT. Why do you think they are not?
As stated, those “inconsistencies” only “don’t appear to be consistent”. Need more clarity, what is the actual physical inconsistency?
What is Nate’s “the modern defn. of heat” now? The two former ones Nate already posted 4:25 am are not consistent with Joule’s experiment as is R. Clausius’ defn.
“What is (Clausius’) definition of heat?”
See above 3/19 6:10 am.
From one of Clausius papers, discussing 1LOT,
“dQ = dU + AdW
Here U means the entity which I first
introduced into heat theory in my paper of
1850 and which I there defined as the sum of
the added free heat and the heat consumed for
inner work”
So clearly he thinks heat can be ‘consumed’ and converted to inner work, which I think means potential energy.
” adopt the experts definition of heat: heat is just a measure of the objects constituent total vis viva.”
Ok so it sounds like heat is molecular kinetic energy in a body.
How is that consistent with
“Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved heat does not exist in an object. Clausius accepted those experiments “???
So heat units have been defined eg as the calorie = the heat input to a gram of water needed to raise its temperature by 1 deg C.
That is what Clausius used.
However he also thought “heat can be consumed and converted to inner work, which I think means potential energy.”
So that means that after transferring 1 calorie to the water, the vis-viva may not increase by 1 calorie, because some of that calorie is consumed in potential energy.
Whereas internal energy U does increase by 1 calorie, the same as the heat input.
“Ok so it sounds like (Clausius) heat is molecular kinetic energy in a body.”
Yes, in total & that is consistent with Clausius’ measure of the objects constituent total vis viva being a measure of the total molecular kinetic energy in a body.
Yes, a measure of the object’s constituent total vis viva can be consumed for inner work.
It is consistent since James Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved a measure of the total vis viva does not exist in an object only the total molecular energy of motion (KE) in a body changes during a process where heating rate Q is nonzero. Clausius accepted those experiments.
More physically correct, whereas internal energy U does increase by 1 calorie, it is the same as a measure of vis viva input.
The point here is that a measure of something has no corporeal existence. Since Clausius’ heat is a measure of something, it has no corporeal existence in an object which was the whole point of Joule’s experiments. That measure increases and decreases at rate Q within a solid object over a heating/cooling process by virtue of a temperature difference with its surroundings.
“The point here is that a measure of something has no corporeal existence. ”
Oh I see what you mean. He disproved the caloric theory that heat is a substance.
Today, the internal energy is more useful as an internal variable in a body, than heat = molecular kinetic energy is.
Because in real materials when heat is transferred to a body, potential energy can take up some of that heat.
Thus the heat that enters a material is not conserved as internal heat as defined by you, but heat is conserved as internal energy.
In various themodynamic texts, including one of mine, Sears and Salinger, Heat Flow Q is defined to be W + delta U.
Again, Joule showed experimentally that Clausius’ heat does not exist in a real body therefore cannot transfer (or flow) from/to a real body.
Yes, Delta U = Q + W where Q is a heating rate over the time of the heating process. Q cannot be heat flow given the results of Joule’s experiments which Clausius then accepted in his defn. of heat.
“Q cannot be heat flow given the results of Joules experiments which Clausius then accepted in his defn. of heat.”
Well my textbook, as well as all others uses the terms heat flow or heat transfer.
The experiments of Joule show that heat is actually just energy, which obviously can be transferred from one body to another.
As I have explained, but you keep ignoring, after heat enters a body, it is not conserved in the form that you defined, because some of it may be transformed into potential energy.
Thus that definition of heat is no longer used, instead thermal energy or internal energy are used.
nOe has to remember that physics is a mathematical description of reality— it is not reality.
As such, it can mathematically describe heat flow in conduction in a copper rod which has a temperature gradient across it.
In reality, the molecular vibrations are travelling in the rod from the hot end toward the cold end, exciting vibrations at the colder end.
Physics describes this as a heat flow from the high temperature end to the low temperature end.
In a similar way, sound waves are not corporeal, but just excitations of a medium. They can travel and transfer energy, and have intensity and flux.
“Well my textbook, as well as all others uses the terms heat flow or heat transfer.”
And yet they all correctly hold heat is not physically contained in a body after Joule’s experiments!
“you keep ignoring”
No, as I’ve constantly pointed out, heat doesn’t “enter a body” from nowhere to become not contained in the body. Clausius’ heat is just a measure of vis viva already in the body. Yes, there exists PV interior work of expansion.
“Physics describes this as a heat flow from the high temperature end to the low temperature end.”
Yet physics holds that there is no heat in between the rod ends after Joules pointed that out experimentally! Just a measure of Clausius’ vis viva is changing between the ends.
Maybe this will help. The total flow through a specified area of a property is the product of the number density of carriers of the property, the speed of the carriers, and the amount of the property each one carries.
If Sears and Salinger, really do write heat flow Q is defined in a certain way, here is where they physically stumble. Heat flow in a gas cannot be decomposed into the product of the number density of molecules, times their speed, times the quantity of heat that each carry through a specified area because molecules do not have a temperature, do not carry heat as a property.
It is possible, of course, to specify the flow of kinetic energy because each molecule has a definite kinetic energy. So, there is a kinetic energy flow, and there is no physical way to correctly relabel it as a fantasy of heat flow. Joules figured this out & remarkably did the physics world some good but his experimental work is largely forgotten.
Molecules carry not only translational kinetic energy as a property but rotational kinetic energy as well as vibrational kinetic and potential energies. Thus, the total energy flow through an area is a well-defined physical quantity, and wherever the fantasy term “heat flow” is encountered, the term should be correctly replaced by physically measurable energy flow.
“And yet they all correctly hold heat is not physically contained in a body after Joules experiments!”
Why do you keep saying this?
Then also saying that heat is physically contained in the body as Vis-Viva?
“So, there is a kinetic energy flow, and there is no physical way to correctly relabel it as a fantasy of heat flow.”
Don’t be silly, Ball4. If the rod connects two bodies together, then heat can be transferred from one body to the other through the rod.
And we have an equation, Fourier’s law, to calculate that heat flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
q = k*grad(T) where q is heat flux density.
Do you really want to claim that this law is bogus?
Because modern text book authors do write that in their texts & Joule experimentally proved it so. You will find it, if you look hard enough.
For example, Van Wylen & Sonntag, ‘Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics’, second printing, Sec. 4.7, p. 71 (of about 550 pages): “… a body never contains heat.”
Correctly for Clausius’ heat: Then also saying that heat is NOT physically contained in the body since heat is defined only a measure of total vis viva.
In Nate’s 12:00 pm link, Nate missed q eqn. is “per unit time” so q is a rate, as always. The law is NOT bogus.
And… AND Nate should have just learned to physically replace “heat flux” with energy flux per unit time since single molecules do not carry heat as a property nor have a temperature & “… a body never contains heat.”
“Correctly for Clausius heat: Then also saying that heat is NOT physically contained in the body since heat is defined only a measure of total vis viva.’
It either is or isnt contained in a body.
The molecular vis-viva IS contained within the body, not external to the body.
So not consistent with your statements.
When the textbooks say ” a body never contains heat.” that is fully consistent with the modern definitions of heat, such as
“Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.”
As in Fourier’s equation.
Are you saying the equation and others involving heat transfer are bogus?
“The molecular vis-viva IS contained within the body, not external to the body.”
Good. A measure of that total vis viva is Clausius’ heat.
“Are you saying the equation and others involving heat transfer are bogus?”
No, of course not. Q is a rate, not heat. Energy transfers from a change in motion of molecules i.e. vis viva.
“When the textbooks say “a body never contains heat.” that is fully consistent with the modern definitions of heat, such as “Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.””
No, it is not physically consistent. Nate still doesn’t understand that heat not being physically contained in a body per textbooks and Joule means heat cannot physically transfer from that body. A measure of vis viva in the body declines when a measure of thermodynamic internal energy transfers out by virtue of a temperature difference with surroundings.
“And AND Nate should have just learned to physically replace heat flux with energy flux per unit time”
no I don’t.
Again, it sounds like you think Fourier’s equation, and all other physics equations that calculate heat flow are doing it wrong.
“Nate still doesnt understand that heat not being physically contained in a body per textbooks and Joule means heat cannot physically transfer from that body.”
But you just agreed:
“The molecular vis-viva IS contained within the body, not external to the body.”
Good. A measure of that total vis viva is Clausius heat.”
So you are not being consistent, Ball4, and not really making much sense.
I’m consistent with Clausius and Joule, Nate. You haven’t shown anything inconsistent with those two.
I’m being consistent with Clausius and Joule, Nate. You haven’t shown an inconsistency with them.
No you are not being consistent, in saying that heat is both contained in the body or not. You cant have it both ways.
Look, please find legit modern source that agrees with your idea that heat cannot be transferred, as described by the Fourier equation, etc.
Nate, the Fourier eqn. for q you clipped is a heating rate by virtue of a temperature difference with surroundings. I’ve already given you a legit modern text source agreeing with Joule’s experimental work & Clausius defn. that heat does not exist in a body. If Nate can’t accept those guys work, there is nothing more with which I can help you.
“Ive already given you a legit modern text source agreeing with Joules experimental work & Clausius defn. that heat does not exist in a body. If Nate cant accept those guys work, there is nothing more with which I can help you.”
I accept both of their works. Joule demonstrated 1LOT and measured the mechanical energy equivalent of heat. Clausius stated 1LOT in clear terms.
You and I agree about 1LOT.
I am completely puzzled then, what your position is on whether heat can exist in a body, because you state here that it
“does not exist in a body”
which all modern textbooks and I agree with!
But then you also state:
The molecular vis-viva IS contained within the body, not external to the body.”
Good. A measure of that total vis viva is Clausius heat.
So here you are saying heat does exist in a body, it is contained in a body.
So you are NOT CONSISTENT. And you have not explained it.
In addition, you appear to disagree with modern textbooks which say that heat can be transferred, can have flow or flux.
Even Clausius agrees that it can:
” in my paper of
1850 and which I there defined as the sum of
the ADDED FREE HEAT”
And it is the basis of calorimetry, which measures the heat uptake of substances as a function of their temperature increase.
Again, I would simply point out that in physics, there are abstract mathematical representations of reality, that are not reality, and heat flow Q, heat flux density, q, etc are in that category.
Do you agree?
It appears that Nate and Ball4 are having a long discussion. Obviously I’m only reading Ball4’s side of it, but it appears that Ball4 is being his usual self. I guess it’s something that at least one of them (Nate) is getting to experience what it’s like arguing with somebody like Ball4. Now, if they could only imagine what it would be like debating not just one Ball4, but several Ball4s, over an extended period of years…
It appears Graham D. Warner tries to interject in an exchange between his fellow sperglord and a guy he pretends not reading.
“wherever the fantasy term heat flow is encountered, the term should be correctly replaced by physically measurable energy flow.”
Should be? But clearly isn’t.
Physics, chemistry, and engineering are content to all use the terms heat flow, heat flux, heat transfer, etc.
“So here you are saying heat does exist in a body”
No. If I was saying heat does exist in a body, then I would wrongly write inconsistent with Clausius and Joule:
The heat IS contained within the body.
but consistent with Clausius’ heat, what I did write was:
“The molecular vis-viva IS contained within the body”
a total measure of which is Clausius’ heat. A measure is not contained in a body.
—-
“Even Clausius agrees that it can: in my paper of
1850 and which I there defined as the sum of
the ADDED FREE HEAT”
which by Clausius’ own defn. means an: added free measure of vis viva.
—-
“Do you agree?”
No. There are useful idealizations of nature (e.g. ideal gas) that are close enough approximations of experimental reality to learn about physics in a first course. As learning increases from more study accomplished, the approximate idealizations are reduced closer to nature.
—-
“Physics, chemistry, and engineering are content to all use the terms heat flow, heat flux, heat transfer, etc.”
As I pointed out, then they accept heat exists in an object, individual molecules carry heat, and have a temperature.
Those that do so have forgotten the long ago work of Clausius & experiments of Joule which proved all that is not true in nature. There are many text book authors though that do realize individual molecules carry only kinetic energy (Clausius’ vis viva), heat isn’t contained in an object, and individual molecules do not have a temperature.
“Physics, chemistry, and engineering are content to all use the terms heat flow, heat flux, heat transfer, etc.
As I pointed out, then they accept heat exists in an object, individual molecules carry heat, and have a temperature.”
Huh? Weird non-sequitur.
No they do not.
As noted in the textbooks, once heat has transferred to a body, it takes the form of internal energy or some is converted to work, consistent with ALL the 1LOT statements found in textbooks.
"Sperglord" is offensive, Little Willy. I’m not trying to interject in the exchange at all. These guys will be going on for days, probably. I just wanted to quickly make my point, and now I’ve done so, I’m happy to leave them to it. If you’ll let me, Little Willy.
Nate 11:00 am leaves out a few words, as noted in text books that claim heat exists in a body to transfer from, heat has transferred.
Physically per Clausius memoirs, a measure of vis visa went down in one body and a measure of vis visa increased in the next body by energy transfer ever since Joule experimentally proved heat does not exist in any object.
” ever since Joule experimentally proved heat does not exist in any object.”
Joule’s work led to the 1LOT. We agree about 1LOT.
We both understand that what is called heat flow by current science, is just energy being transferred between objects at different temperatures.
Who cares about the name for this that science has adopted?
It is only a label.
Nate, it’s important physics to use Clausius defn. for heat because energy (his vis viva) transfers both ways. You experience how many around here get the physics consistently (ever lastingly!) wrong when the heat label is used in an attempt to treat heat as a substance contained in a body & then assuming a meaning different than Clausius’ heat.
Using work as a noun is at least consistent with its definition as a force acting through a distance, but heat cannot be given such a tidy noun definition except by resorting to paranormal arguments. Neither work nor Clausius’ heat are contained in a body thus cannot transfer from that body. Authors that write so tacitly accept an individual molecule has a temperature which is not true.
“Authors that write so tacitly accept an individual molecule has a temperature which is not true.”
How do you arrive at that weird non-sequitur?
“Physically per Clausius memoirs, a measure of vis visa went down in one body and a measure of vis visa increased in the next body by energy transfer”
But not by the same amount, Ball4.
The 1LOT, in its present form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
DeltaU = Q – W
Now suppose no W is done, then we have
DeltaU = Q
This only makes sense if Q is the amount of non-work energy ADDED to or REMOVED from a body.
Only U exists in the body.
The 1LOT equation makes absolutely no sense for both U to increase by Delta U, AND to have a HEAT increase by Q IN the body..
Winter will return to the eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/PmH025f/ventusky-wind-500hpa-20240319t2100.jpg
Still waiting for the UAH map for February, so here’s my attempt at drawing the GISS data using a similar style to the UAH maps.
https://imgur.com/a/Pn3EIqL
Their anomaly for the month is 0.78C relative to 1991-2020, so a bit cooler than UAH.
Good job, Bellman.
Until now, I still can’t understand why Nick can’t get rid of posting his GISS data wrt 1951-1980:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2024/01/Janmap0.png
Simply boring.
Moreover, not only the map is missing. The grid data for February
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
is also missing, including the ncd~c file with zonal and regional series.
Things happen :–)
That’s a serious joke, Bellman, given that GISS temps are totally fudged. Remember, GISS claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood. You can check the UAH graph above to see that 2014 was never within 0.3C of the warmest year to date.
Besides that, the land stations have one thermometer covering every 100,000 kms. The ocean coverage is even worse.
Bellman
Once more, Robertson is utterly lying with his free invented station distribution over the Globe: he still tries to invent that NOAA even today considers only 1500 stations worldwide.
But… let us imagine he would be right, and would even be able to show us these 1500 stations (what of course he is not).
The we could generate a time series out of these stations and compare it to NOAA’s Climate at a Glance data, currently generated out of over 27000.
*
What Robertson of course is unable to grasp is the amount of redundancy no only in the station sets, but also for example in the UAH grid data for LT.
Years ago I wrote a group of methods generating, for UAH LT, a time series out of evenly distributed grid cell subsets.
Here is an example showing a comparison of the classical UAH time series generated out of all 9504 cells to one generated out of only 256 cells (2.7% of the whole grid):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij_jKmyrBJOMUdwtRP6NYqyGXibNPnRb/view
As we can see, the 256 grid cells are a good approximation to the real time series based on the full grid. {For the opinionated Brit: A graph based on more severe smoothing than SRMs would show the same.}
*
Robertson is braying all the time like a donkey, discredits, denigrates and lies wherever he can, but doesn’t have a bit of a clue of what he is telling about.
What else can we expect from a gullible person who soaks up all the garbage insinuated by contrarian blogs and uses their bogus pseudo-knowledge to claim among other utter nonsense that time doesn’t exist?
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
UAH Gridded data is now up for February, but I’m still having problems loading the map. So here’s my version based on the data.
https://imgur.com/a/iSKuz0F
A side-by-side comparison
https://imgur.com/UFWN3Bk
Bellman
Again: excellent work.
What bothers me, as always, is this Mollweide projection, which, while a very good geographical representation, significantly reduces the size of everything near the poles, preventing us from capturing the information near the poles as effortlessly as that in the tropics.
Your anomaly comparison of GISS vs. UAH LT, based on the same 1991-2020 reference period, is simply amazing.
Merci beaucoup.
Here is the direct output of UAH’s grid for Feb 2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17mv_1jE3pJPQhbPV42Oh7Oa5HoCM6-ct/view
Thanks, I am pleased how they came out, though I’ve still a lot to figure out.
I agree about Mollweide projections, but wanted to keep it consistent with the UAH presentation.
I think surface reflectivity and Albedo are different.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sure, reflectivity is different due different irradiance wavelengths, Christos.
Earth’s albedo is for the SW band irradiance reflection while natural surface reflectivity is for the LW band irradiance when emissivity at terrestrial temperatures is being discussed.
For example, measurements have natural clean surface snow (grain size 0.5 mm) reflectivity is 0.97 for solar SW (albedo wavelength 0.4 to 0.7 micron) irradiance so is whitest natural substance on Earth while for terrestrial LW irradiance (1.5 micron) snow reflectivity is near blackest material on Earth at 0.05.
That also explains why we see natural snow as white, not a visible black substance which clean, natural snow is well into the IR. This is why many commenters here are easily led astray (by their lying eyes) in extrapolating outside the narrow range of visible wavelengths to which human eyes are sensitive.
ball4…For example, measurements have natural clean surface snow (grain size 0.5 mm) reflectivity is 0.97 for solar SW….”
***
Ever heard of snow-blindness? It’s a condition where reflection from snow moves almost parallel to the surface and into the eyes of the afflicted. How does any instrument measure such reflection?
Same on the ocean.
“How does any instrument measure such reflection?”
By configuring a spectrometer for utilization as a reflectometer. The measurements I noted were obtained experimentally from a Perkin-Elmer Model E-13 in March 1975.
The spectral reflectance of fresh and aged snow in the range of 0.60 to 2.50 micron wavelengths was studied in a cold laboratory using fresh & aged natural snow. The military was interested in funding the studies to produce working snow camouflage and goggles to effectively reduce Gordon’s mention of snow-blindness.
The more current instrument is found here so Gordon can learn how it works on his own time:
https://www.perkinelmer.com/
You are missing the forest for the trees. When it is claimed Earth’s surface has an albedo of such and such, how is that measured when a lot of the reflection is not picked up by the instrument?
And, how does albedo account for absorbed energy versus reflected energy? The process are is far too tenuous to be accurate.
Apparently, Gordon just hasn’t read and understood all of the earthen albedo of interest is picked up by instrumentation in the SW band.
Albedo doesn’t account for absorbed energy, Gordon. Measured albedo accounts for the non-absorbed SW solar energy.
“Apparently, Gordon just hasnt read and understood all of the earthen albedo of interest is picked up by instrumentation in the SW band.”
Ball4, you fantasist. The Earths albedo cannot be measured, only estimated.
You are away with the fairies. You even appear to believe in a GHE which you cant describe!
Its no use you saying “There is a GHE once greenhouses were built.”, as you did before. Thats just meaningless nonsense. Do you think that greenhouses magically create heat? You havent actually built a greenhouse, have yo? In reality – the contents of your febrile imagination dont count.
Go back to fairyland. It obviously suits you better than reality.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
While bi-hemispherical reflectance is calculated for a single angle of incidence (i.e., for a given position of the Sun), albedo is the directional integration of reflectance over all solar angles in a given period. The temporal resolution may range from seconds (as obtained from flux measurements) to daily, monthly, or annual averages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
I fear that albedo is yet another red-herring. Reflection is frequency dependent and unless those frequencies are accounted for and related to the reflecting agent, I don’t think albedo is a good measure of anything significant.
For example, if an element is reflecting a frequency corresponding to the colour green, it is likely absorbing all other frequencies. That means it is likely heating as well as reflecting. So, how do we measure exactly how much is absorbed per element and how much is reflected?
I posted a link recently that reveals, since at least 1900, a full 1350+ w/m^2 has been measured right at the surface, not TOA.
> I fear
Never fear, Bordo. There will always be a crankiest take for you to blurt out.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Heres you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
clint…”The thermodynamic definition of heat is: The transfer of energy from hot to cold”.
***
What type of energy is being transferred, Clint? If one body is hotter than another, that suggests it has more heat than the other and we measure that difference using a thermometer. Therefore a transfer of energy has to mean a transfer of heat.
So, you and other ijits are claiming that we need to drop words like hotter, because heat is an imaginary measure of energy transfer.
In the past, you have admitted that thermal energy exists but only as internal energy. I confirmed with Christos, who is Greek, and who speaks Greek as his native language, that the root meaning of thermal is the Greek word therme. Christos confirmed that therme in Greek means heat. Therefore, thermal energy is heat.
I don’t give a Monkey’s bum what politically-correct ijits want to call heat, or that you are stoopid enough to listen to them, heat is energy that flows from a hotter area to a cooler area.
Gordon, you’re clogging the blog, again.
“Heat” does NOT exist in an object. Heat is the transfer of energy from a hot object to a cold object. It is the TRANSFER of that energy, or rate of energy transfer. Heat has units of energy per time. That is thermodynamics.
You’re stuck with the colloquial version of “heat”, because you’ve never studied thermodynamics.
You don’t understand the basics like heat, energy, flux, time, etc.
And, you can’t learn….
Please quit clogging the blog.
Once again, what energy is being transferred? Cat got your tongue? If one body is hotter than another, what energy is transferred to make the hotter body cooler?
Name the energy being transferred and it will being apparent from your lame definition that heat is a measure of the transfer of heat.
Duh!!!
Gordon, the hotter body is the “hot”.
You don’t even understand the basics like heat, energy, flux, time, etc.
And, you can’t learn….
Please stop clogging the blog.
Ball4 demonstrated he has lost all contact with reality. He wrote –
“What do you know, Clint finally confirms adding enough ice cubes can boil water. Good job, Clint.”
What an idiot Ball4 is!
That is just more experimental science for Swenson to admit is incomprehensible to Swenson. Pity
Ball4,
“That is just more experimental science for Swenson to admit is incomprehensible to Swenson.”
Yes, the idea that heat from ice cubes can boil water is incomprehensible. Only fantasists like you believe that your imagination is a valid “experiment”.
Rather like believing in a GHE which you cant actually describe!
Carry on believing.
Clint’s doppelganger Ball4 repeats Clint’s folly re heat…
“Gordon has advanced a long way in just a month to the understanding heat is just a measure of a material objects total thermodynamic internal energy with no physical corporeal existence to transfer as proved experimentally by James Prescott Joule”.
***
B4 is confused, he is mistaking kinetic energy for heat. Kinetic energy is a description of energy in motion, not an energy per se, and in this case the internal energy is comprised of heat plus the mechanical energy of vibrating atoms.
B4 claims heat has no corporeal existence but I’ll bet that if he accidentally touched a really hot surface, and got his skin scorched, he’d have to admit something corporeal did it. Either that or B4 thinks a burn is imaginary.
Neither Clint nor B4 can explain the energy that produces a temperature change. In their limited minds, they believe what they are told by authority figures and neither can offer a scientific explanation for the generic energy they believe affects everything.
Problem is, an energy like electromagnetic energy has no mass, has a frequency, and is comprised of two fields, one electric and one magnetic, that are perpendicular to each other. Heat is the energy associated with atoms in motion. Electric energy is a complex flow of electrons, that have mass, and electric charges that do not. Mechanical energy is the property of a mass in motion whereas chemical energy is the energy stored in chemical bonds. Then, of course, gravitational energy is the energy that attracts masses to a surface.
Clint and B4 cannot distinguish between the vast differences between those energies, insisting that a generic energy exists that is uniform and without difference. I find that hiding behind such trite definitions is somewhat cowardly.
Only the scientifically insecure rely on such generic definitions while refusing to confront them.
Gordon, please stop clogging the blog.
clint becomes more pahthetic which each post. Sad to see a former skeptic like Clint gradually transforming to a climate alarmist. But, hey, he is gaining new friends like Binny, Norman, and Ball4. I suspect that wee willy even harbours a secret admiration for Clint.
Please quit clogging the blog.
Amusingly Gordon writes “B4 is confused, he is mistaking kinetic energy for heat.” then Gordon writes being similarly confused also mistaking KE of motion for heat “Heat is the energy associated with atoms in motion.”
There is no mistaking here, Gordon, since Clausius non-tritely defines heat as the measure of the total energy associated with atoms in motion (vis viva) in an object.
Too high a measure and you get your skin scorched when touching a corporeal object.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Clausius non-tritely defines heat as the measure of the total energy associated with atoms in motion (vis viva) in an object.”
Which you can’t measure of course, any more than you can measure the total energy emitted or absorbed by an object.
Appealing to authority won’t create a GHE, will it? You can’t find an authority who can define the GHE, because the GHE is a myth. As to “too high a measure and you get your skin scorched”, you are demonstrating your ignorance.
You confuse temperature (degree of hotness) with an amount of energy. A cubic kilometre of ice contains a vast amount of “heat energy”, but will not scorch you at all. On the other hand, a white hot needle contains little “heat energy”, but can definitely scorch your skin.
Your obvious confusion makes your babbling about oddities like “an Earthern GHE”, and a “planetary GHE” (with different “temperatures”) seem quite demented.
“Which you can’t measure of course”
Correct. I’m astounded! Swenson actually stumbles into getting something physically correct. No one has actually ever measured the total thermodynamic U in an object. The measure of total vis viva is not ever known. Delta U over the time of the process (Q + W) though can be measured & that’s all that’s ever needed.
If Swenson defines temperature as degree of “hotness” what then is degree of “coldness”? Anti-temperature? Temperature really is the avg. vis viva which CAN be measured on different scales. U is the total vis viva.
Swenson also is correct in that there is more heat in km^3 of glacier ice than in a boiling teakettle in my kitchen.
Swenson goes 2 for 2 for 1.000 BA, and a fielder’s choice which isn’t an AB. What a surprise, can’t really pity poor Swenson for the 8:45 pm comment except to read still doesn’t understand how farmers can possibly grow produce for profit in the winter time.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“If Swenson defines temperature as degree of “hotness” what then is degree of “coldness”.
What a stupid gotcha! Are you mad, or just stupid?
There are no “degrees of coldness”. No “cold rays”, no measuring temperature in W/m2 either.
The degree of hotness of a body is expressed in various “degrees”, from a nominal absolute zero – in degrees of increasing hotness. The Kelvin scale, for example, starts at zero, and steadily increases. Celsius assigns zero to the nominal freezing point of water, and this shows negative and positive degrees with respect to zero. Still, no absolute degrees of “coldness” – just increasing hotness above absolute zero.
Babbling about farmers, and implying that greenhouses create the greenhouse effect, and claiming that the Earth cooled from a molten state due to a lack of greenhouses, just makes you look like a complete nutter! You even wrote “There is a GHE once greenhouses were built. Obviously Swenson is the commenter dreaming there is no GHE.” The air in a sealed shipping container can get a lot hotter than the air in a greenhouse. Do you think there is a “shipping container effect” heating the planet?
Maybe you are a nutter – what is “Swenson goes 2 for 2 for 1.000 BA, and a fielders choice which isnt an AB.” supposed to mean? Resorting to incomprehensible gibberish might not make you look more intelligent than you are.
Carry on.
“Do you think there is a “shipping container effect” heating the planet?”
No, the planet is much larger.
Ball4,
So hot shipping containers cannot heat the planet, but greenhouses can, is that it?
You are so ignorant that you believe in magic.
Do you believe in degrees of “coldness” below absolute zero? How about an “Earthen GHE”? Or maybe that greenhouses are heating the planet!
Your silliness never ceases, does it?
swannie…”Gordo, generations of engineers have accepted your so-called illusion as proven fact because it works”.
***
MAJOR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY ALERT!!!
Swannie thinks that because certain engineers claim heat is transferred by EM that it must be the case.
In some mechanical engineering textbooks, it is claimed that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures via EM radiation. Yet, not one of those textbooks gives an example of that by supplying actual temperature changes in either body.
It is painfully obvious that such a claim is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century when it was believed that heat was transferred through space by mysterious heat rays. That ridiculous theory was put to rest in 1913 when Bohr discovered the real relationship between heat on a surface and electromagnetic radiation.
In my field of electrical engineering, it is still taught that electric current flows positive to negative. The textbooks usually supply a brief reference to the fact that the positive to negative direction is actually a convention dating back to the 1920s. The theory was completely wrong. Then they blithely proceed to fill the minds of engineering students with that nonsense.
Not satisfied with that propaganda, in semiconductor theory, they teach that ‘holes’ can carry electric current.
A hole is a hole!!! If I dig a hole in the ground then proceed in a direction along a line, digging another hole and using the displaced soil to fill the previous hole, the hole will appear to move along that line.
Duh!!! In a semiconductor, that is exactly what is happening. An electron vacates a position in an atom and moves to another location, leaving a hole in the valence band. When it moves, it leaves a hole behind. and the hole appears to move in the opposite direction to the electron. So, the rocket scientists have claimed the hole movement is a positive current.
But here’s the problem. The inventor of the concept of holes, in the 1930s, Shockley, admitted in the first few sentences of his book on the subject that he invented the concept of a hole and had used it only as a means of visualization. He did not mean to imply that a hole actually existed and could carry a current.
Some ijits have gone so far as to claim the hole has mass. That’s akin to claiming a photon, which has no mass, has momentum. Momentum is an extension of Newton’s theory of inertia, which is a property Newton gave to mass, which resists a change in motion. Momentum is the property of a body in motion to resist a change in that motion.
Duh!!! Momentum requires mass and a photon, having no mass, cannot possibly have momentum.
Wrong Gordon. It is NOT taught that current flows from positive to negative. That is the convention chosen to avoid confusion. This has been explained to you before. But, you can’t learn. You were born to be confused.
Please stop clogging the blog.
“In my field of electrical engineering, it is still taught that electric current flows positive to negative. ”
Because it does!
* current (dQ/dt) flows from positive to negative.
* electrons flow from negative to positive.
A flow of negative electrons to the right is a flow of positive current to the left.
tim…you are a blithering ijit. Not even worth a reply to such nonsense.
You clearly don’t understand the basic of atomic physics.I just finished explaining that the space vacated by an electron, a hole, has no mass and can carry no current.
Theoretically, a hole represents an absence of negative charge and in the context of chemistry, it can produce what is called an ion. An ion, by definition, is nothing more than a reduction in negative charge in the valence band of an atom, therefore it is deemed as a relatively positive charge.
If you have an orbital with a full complement of electrons, it is classified as electrically neutral. If an electron is moved, leaving a hole where it was located, you now have a hole that is deemed a positive locale wrt to the overall negative charge. However, the overall charge of the atom has been reduced and you are left with a positive ion. That does not mean you have a positive mass that can move along a conductor as a current.
Relative is the key word, it does not mean that a hole can suddenly be a charge carrier. Because the hole is deemed relatively positive for the entire atom does not mean there is anything there to constitute a current.
Tim, a hole is a hole, there is nothing there to move.
In semiconductors, the silicon is intentionally ‘doped’ with donor or acceptor atoms to produce an excess or dearth of electrons. Some people like to call a dearth of electrons ‘holes’, but once again, they are holes in an electron orbital, not a real charge component with mass.
> you are a blithering ijit
Please leave that crap to Mike Flynn, bozo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, I said nothing about holes. My point is not about holes. It is about the fundamental distinction between ELECTRIC current and PARTICLE current.
Suppose one plate of a capacitor has a positive charge and the other has a negative charge. Later they are both neutral. The electric current was from the positive plate to the negative plate. No matter what particles physically moved the charge from one plate to the other, the electric current is the same direction.
Tim,
If someone gets struck by lightning, and turned into a crispy critter, was it the result of PARTICLE current or ELECTRIC current?
Does it matter? Does either support a non-existent GHE?
Arguing about definitions is hardly scaling the intellectual heights, is it?
Christos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#/media/File%3AWater_reflectivity.jpg
Now this is interesting. It means that you only get much specular reflection from the ocean when the Sun is less than 20 degrees above the horizon. That’s about 5% of the disk area.
Only 0.7 of that area will be ocean and o.6 clear of cloud. Average reflectivity for that area is about 60%.
As a % of albedo specular reflection will therefore be 5*0.7*0.6*0.6 = 1.6%.
Albedo is about 100W/m^2+/-0.7.
Specular reflection will be about 1.6W/m^2 +/-0.7 which is barely above the uncertainty. It is certainly too small to produce the climatically significant uncertainty you claim.
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“It is certainly too small to produce the climatically significant uncertainty you claim.”.
No, you are incorrect. By definition, there is no lower limit to a change to initial conditions which may result in completely unpredictable outcomes of a deterministic chaotic system.
A characteristic of such a system is when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. Fully deterministic, chaotic, and unpredictable.
There is certainly no way of determining what the effect of atmospheric constituents will be on future states of the atmosphere. No GHE.
Even the IPCC has clearly stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Do you believe otherwise? If not, why are you wasting your time making irrelevant comments?
Sure, even the IPCC has clearly stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states but it is possible to reasonably predict future global mean temperature ranges.
“it is possible to reasonably predict future global mean temperature ranges.”
Do it, then. Better than a 12 year old, of course!
By the way, saying something nonsensical like “global mean temperature ranges” makes you look pretty ignorant. Typical of fanatical GHE cultists, who love talking about things they can’t actually describe, let alone measure.
Keep displaying your ignorance if you wish.
Do it? No need. It’s already been done. Swenson wouldn’t understand so pointless to explain. Pity.
“Do it? No need. Its already been done.”
No, it hasnt. You dont even know what a “global mean temperature range” is!
Nobody has measured such a fantasm. Especially not a dummy like you, who gets confused about the difference between temperature and heat!
Keep trying to make fact out of fiction. You just look sillier and sillier.
” Keep displaying your ignorance if you wish. ”
Ball4 doesn’t need to do that because Flynnson has already taken on that role – about 20 times per day.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“completely unpredictable outcomes of a deterministic chaotic system.”
Not so. Research strange attractors.
EM,
“Research strange attractors.”
Maybe you are unaware of why strange attractors are thus named.
You might be more impressed by Wolfram –
“Strange Attractor
An attracting set that has zero measure in the embedding phase space and has fractal dimension. Trajectories within a strange attractor appear to skip around randomly.”
For anyone interested, the term “zero measure” (as used by Wolfram) gives an indication of the non-predictability of a deterministic chaotic system. Even the IPCC admits that the atmosphere acts chaotically, and thus it is not possible to predict future states of the system.
You demonstrate your ignorance by instructing “research strange attractors” while obviously being totally clueless. The typical patronising (but utterly meaningless) behaviour of the fanatical GHE cultist.
Here’s your completely pointless and totally useless definition of the GHE –
“The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”!
Or a great steaming pile of manure, which contains more heat than a pile of blankets?
Keep dispensing your nonsense – it may be of use to the intellectually impaired, exceptionally gullible, or other fanatical GHE cultists.
Carry on.
Ent,
“Christos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#/media/File%3AWater_reflectivity.jpg
Now this is interesting. It means that you only get much specular reflection from the ocean when the Sun is less than 20 degrees above the horizon. Thats about 5% of the disk area.”
The Graph you reference to says:
“Reflectivity of smooth water at 20 C (68 F) (refractive index=1.333) ”
Not what you commented: “less than 20 degrees above the horizon.”
Those degrees, in the reference, are temperature degrees…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When working with Fresnell’s Graph (Reflectivity of smooth water at 20 C (68 F) (refractive index=1.333))
I have calculated for specular reflection 43,4 %.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not temperature degrees, angles. Specifically zenith angles. I’m talking geometry.
Reflection from the surface of water when the angle of the incoming light is more than 49 degrees from the zenith. This is called the critical angle.
Conversely reflection only takes place when the Sun is less than 90-49 = 41 degrees above the horizon.
Looking at the graph you can see that you only get much reflection when the zenith angle is greater than 70 degrees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#/media/File%3AWater_reflectivity.jpg
For this to happen the Sun would be no more than 20 degrees above the horizon.
At the Equator this only happens for 1 hour 20 minutes after dawn and 1 hour twenty minutes before dusk. That is 2 hours 40 minutes out of twelve hours daylight.
As I said earlier, the percentage of the dayside area of the Earth disc with a Sun zenith angle of 70 degrees or larger is around 5% and will receive 5% of the incoming sunlight.
Even before you consider the reduced light intensity of a low Sun and other factors, this is no more than 5% of 340W/m^2 or 16W/m^2.
This is 16% of the observed 100W/m^2 albedo.
However I approach this problem I can’t get anywhere near your estimate that specular reflection is 43% of albedo.
EM,
Examination of the polar regions shows that for significant periods of time, the Sun never rises more than 41 above the horizon. Would this mean that 100% of sunlight is reflected, none at all being absorbed? Sounds fair, the polar regions are much colder than the equatorial regions.
Specular reflection from water is constantly varying, because the surface is never perfectly still, anyway. All estimation and guess.
Maybe you don’t know that an average 8% of the incident light normal to the water surface is reflected? Isaac Newton observed this, but was unable to explain it. It took the discovery of quantum physics to provide an answer.
The take away is that the Earth’s albedo is constantly changing, cannot be accurately calculated, and who cares anyway? It is what it is, and cannot be used to support the mythical GHE – except by fanatical GHE cultists.
Ent,
“However I approach this problem I cant get anywhere near your estimate that specular reflection is 43% of albedo.”
–
What I have calculated is “I have calculated for specular reflection 43,4 %.”
And the 43,4 % is not of albedo, it is of the incoming solar flux,
0,434*So
Ent, I am inviting you to visit the page in my site where I have performed the step-by-step calculations, working meticulously on the Fresnells Graph.
–
Please visit,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448587170
Your calculation makes no sense.
First let me remind you of the observed energy flows averaged over the planet.
Insolation 340W/m^2
Albedo 100W/m^2
Absorbed 240W/m^2
Outward longwave radiation 238W/m^2
To validate the values you can check against two relationships you should expect.
Insolation- albedo = absorbed radiation
340 -100 = 240
Check.
Absorbed radiation = outward longwave radiation
240=238
Not quite, but the energy imbalance would be expected in a warming world.
Now for the results based on your calculation.
Insolation 340W/m^2
Diffuse albedo 100W/m^2
Specular reflection 156W/m^2 (340*0.43)
Absorbed radiation 84W/m^2 (340-100-156)
Outward longwave radiation 238W/m^2
These figures do not check.
Insolation – albedo – specular reflection = absorbed radiation.
340-100-156 =84
Your predicted absorbed radiation of 84 is way too small to agree with the measured 240 absorbed radiation.
Absorbed radiation = outward longwave radiation
84 = 238
84 is also way too small to match the measured 240 outward longwave radiation.
Sorry, you predictions for Earth’s energy budget do not match observed reality. The specular reflection part of your theory is wrong.
EM,
You wrote –
“Sorry, you predictions for Earths energy budget do not match observed reality. The specular reflection part of your theory is wrong.”
How is this relevant to your description of the GHE – “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”?
Was there more to your description than you were letting on, but you were keeping it secret?
Sounds like a fanatical GHE cultist attempt to avoid reality.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Your calculation makes no sense.”
–
Specular and diffuse reflectioncannot be averaged over the entire planet surface – the dark side doesn’t reflect solar light.
–
The reflection happens on the solar lit hemisphere.
The solar flux, when perpendicular to the surface is ~1360 W/m^2.
It takes place somewhere around equator at local noon.
When Eqinox, it takes place at local noon on equator.
The sun is exactly above then at that one particular point.
For the rest of solar lit hemisphere, sun is not exactly above.
The angle of incidence changes for all directions away from that one particular point, towards the terminator, and not only pole-ward.
So, there is only one particular point on Earth’s solar lit hemisphere surface every given moment, where sun is exactly above.
Thus the entire solar lit hemisphere reflects specularly, the lower is the sun the higher is the specular reflection ratio.
The lower is the sun, the larger is the cycle on the hemisphere, at which cycle the stronger is the specular reflection.
Ent, my calculation makes a lot of sense.
–
Please visit, and reconsider.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448587170
I’m sorry, but except for a small amount of AGW a planetary energy budget must balance. Your calculation leads to a budget which is wildly out of balance.
You are constrained by two measurements. Insolation is measured at 1360W/m^2 by satellite sensors and averages 340W/m^2 across a spherical Earth.
Outward longwave radiation averages 240W/m^2 also measured by satellite sensors and independently by earthshine onto the night side of the Moon.
To be credible your hypothesis must produce a planetary energy budget which matches observation.
Over to you.
Remember the two criteria your energy budget must meet.
Insolation – outward shortwave radiation = absorbed shortwave radiation.
Absorbed shortwave radiation = outward longwave radiation.
Please supply values for these five variables which
a) agree with measured values.
b) produce a balanced budget.
c) comply with your theory.
If you want your theory to be seriously considered, these are among the tests it must pass.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Im sorry, but except for a small amount of AGW a planetary energy budget must balance. Your calculation leads to a budget which is wildly out of balance.”
–
“leads wildly out of balance”
Yes, it looks like at first approach, but it is not out of balance.
“To be credible your hypothesis must produce a planetary energy budget which matches observation.”
I do not average the solar incoming EM energy. A planet surface interacts with the solar incoming EM energy as a whole surface.
The surface, while interacting with EM energy, the surface rotates, reflects, emits, absorbs, emits – altogether…
Here it is what I have:
Planet Energy Budget
When planet surface is in radiative equilibrium, planet energy balance should be met: Energy In = Energy Out
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S (W) – is on the entire planet surface the not reflected portion (the TOTAL not reflected) of the incident on planet surface solar flux
Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).
a – is the planet average surface Albedo (Bond)
S – W/m^2 – the solar flux at the planet’s average distance from the sun.
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S = 4πr^2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
Please, for more, visit page: “A NEW UNIVERSAL LAW”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443983948/
It’s certainly a different approach.
How do I test it?
We are looking for experimental evidence;observations, measurements and data which will differ depending on which of us is correct.
Ent,
“Its certainly a different approach.
How do I test it?
We are looking for experimental evidence;observations, measurements and data which will differ depending on which of us is correct.”
–
“How do I test it?”
By the comparison of the other planets and moons in solar system.
For them there are satellite measured Albedo, the satellite measured average surface temperatures, and the rotational spin and siurnal durationa are also known – thus we have the (N).
Also we know for the planets and moons in solar system their surface features (smooth or rough) and we know from what chemical composition the planet crust is formed of – thus the average surface (cp).
–
The Tmean equation results are compared for twenty (20) solar system bodies (planets and moons), with the equation’s calculated temperature closely matching the data, the NASA satellite measured temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s focus on Earth, whose energy flows are now monitored in considerable detail.
Remember I was discussing the energy budget in terms of insolation, outward shortwave radiation, absorbed shortwave radiation and outward longwave radiation.
I don’t mind whether you express them as flux in W/m^2 or joules/year. Please calculate what values your theory would predict so that I can compare them with the conventional energy budget.
For example, total insolation is 1360W/m^2* cross sectional area of the Earth.
1360 * 3600 * 24* 365 * π * 6,000,000 *6,000,000 = 4.85*10^24 Joules/year.
We agree that total joules in = total joules out.
The sum of all the outgoing radiation should also be 4.85*10^24 Joules/year.
If you calculate the total joules for diffuse albedo, specular reflection and absorbed radiation, I ‘ll do the same using the conventional energy budget and we can compare notes.
Ent,
“For example, total insolation is 1360W/m^2* cross sectional area of the Earth.
1360 * 3600 * 24* 365 * π * 6,000,000 *6,000,000 = 4.85*10^24 Joules/year.
We agree that total joules in = total joules out.
The sum of all the outgoing radiation should also be 4.85*10^24 Joules/year.”
–
–
Ok. Let’s do it. I do it on the cros-section disk area.
1360 * Φ(1 – 0,306) = 1360*0,47*0,694 = 444 W/m^2 (not reflected)
4σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 = 4*5,67*10^-8*288^4 /(150*1*1)^1/4
4*5,67*10^-8*6.879.707.136 /150^1/4 = 4*390,08 /3,5 = 444 W/m^2 (outgoing)
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you.
That makes your figures in W/m^2 for the disc
Insolation 1360
Reflected shortwave 916
Not reflected 444
Outgoing longwave 444
The measured figures are
Insolation 1360
Reflected shortwave 408
Not reflected 952
Outgoing longwave 952
As before, your predicted reflected shortwave (albedo+specular reflection) are way above observed values while your absorbed radiation and outward longwave radiation are way too small.
Ent.
“As before, your predicted reflected shortwave (albedo+specular reflection) are way above observed values while your absorbed radiation and outward longwave radiation are way too small.”
–
Yes, exactly, that is what happens.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ent,
“Which is my point. A theory whose predictions do not match the observed and measured evidence is wrong.”
–
And you are absolutely right.
–
And here is what I have, when checking the theory on the other planets and moons in solar system:
The Tmean equation results are compared for twenty (20) solar system bodies (planets and moons), with the equations calculated temperature closely matching the data, the NASA satellite measured temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Which is my point. A theory whose predictions do not match the observed and measured evidence is wrong.
Ent,
“Which is my point. A theory whose predictions do not match the observed and measured evidence is wrong.”
–
And you are absolutely right.
–
And here is what I have, when checking the theory on the other planets and moons in solar system:
The Tmean equation results are compared for twenty (20) solar system bodies (planets and moons), with the equations calculated temperature closely matching the data, the NASA satellite measured temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ent,
” A theory whose predictions do not match the observed and measured evidence is wrong.”
–
In Earth’s radiative energy balance the specular reflection is neglected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“In Earths radiative energy balance the specular reflection is neglected.”
Evidence? You still have not provided any.
You need to show the flaws in the measurement methods that demonstrate that they are missing specular reflection.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“You need to show the flaws in the measurement methods that demonstrate that they are missing specular reflection.”
–
Yes, I have shown that the same (the specular reflection neglection) we can observe on six planets and moons with smooth surface, namely:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa (Jupiter’s satellite)
Ganymede (Jupiter’s satellite)
–
Also, I invite you to observe the strong specular reflection the Earth’s surface has everywhere you look.
Just stand facing towards the sun’s direction, and then look down on ground.
What happens is your eyes unconcsiously narrow, because land exibits strong specular reflection.
Next, turn to the opposite of the sun direction and look at the same solar irradiated ground – you realize your eyes do not narrow, because when in opposite direction you see ground in diffuse light only.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Yes, I have shown that the same (the specular reflection neglection) we can observe on six planets and moons with smooth surface, namely:”
No you havent shown that the MEASUREMENTS have missed measuring specular reflection.
Sorry, no data, no credit.
This paper may be helpful to you. It describes the methods the CERES satellite team uses to measure and/or account for all possible reflected radiation from the Earth.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3301_dtotaf_2.0.co_2.xml
Have a look, and tell me what you think they are doing wrong.
Thank you, Nate,
“This paper may be helpful to you. It describes the methods the CERES satellite team uses to measure and/or account for all possible reflected radiation from the Earth.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3301_dtotaf_2.0.co_2.xml
Have a look, and tell me what you think they are doing wrong.”
–
–
I checked for the word “specular” – there is not a single mention in the article.
–
So I cheched then for the word “diffuse” – the same exactly result – there is not a single mention in the article.
–
Please, Nate, those words where the starting points for me to begin understanding what they are doing wrong.
–
How ever I could tell what they are doing wrong, they do not deal with diffuse or specular reflection issues whatsoever?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate, please visit:
An Earth Albedo Model: A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation from the Earth Below
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
The words “diffuse” and “specular” have no need to be mentioned because reflected light is always the same frequency as incident light so both “diffuse” and “specular” reflection is measured in Earth’s broadband albedo on CERES. Christos just hasn’t done his homework to learn about CERES albedo measurement instrumentation.
Christos has been misled since his posted link even specifically states it ignores specular reflection: “Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.” but not ignored by CERES nor could it be unless CERES was wearing polarized sunglasses.
Also visit:
Arthur P. Smith∗the average temperature of Earths surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
Also, Ball4, please explain, how it comes you do not see Earth’s surface exibits specular reflection?
“but not ignored by CERES nor could it be unless CERES was wearing polarized sunglasses.”
Do you wear polarised sunglasses, Ball4?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sometimes. Especially when the need to reduce specular reflection is evident
“This ensures that all radiation contributions, including radiation escaping the planet along slant paths above the earth’s tangent point, are accounted for. ”
You don’t think this is inclusive of specular reflection?
It sure looks like it is.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Christos,
Do you have an answer or not?
What evidence do you have that the CERES satellite is missing some of the reflected SW radiation from Earth?
It seem you are simply asserting this without evidence.
clint…”It is NOT taught that current flows from positive to negative. That is the convention chosen to avoid confusion”.
***
Then you had better write to the authors of my EE book and tell them so.
There is definitely confusion, and you are mightily confused.
Current flow is via electrons and negative electric charges on electrons. There is no other particle in a copper conductor that can carry charge from positive to negative.
Current is a measure of charges, the coulomb being the unit of electrical charge. An ampere of current is one coulomb of charge passing a point in a circuit in 1 second and those coulombs are a measure of electron charge, nothing else. The only positive charge in a copper conductor is in the nucleus of the copper atoms and is bound in place. Protons, positive charges. cannot move through a copper wire.
The more I hear from you the more eccentric you become.
Gordon, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re wandering all over the place aimlessly, as usual.
By convention, a positive current is the current coming from the positive terminal of a battery. A positive current enters the negative terminal of a battery. Any REAL electrical engineer knows that. It’s very basic. You can’t understand it.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Please stop clogging the blog.
A positive current made up of the absence of electrons. i.e. holes.
klint klown does not understand the difference between battery internals and the external current flow in a circuit. The cathode inside a battery is the positive terminal because it attracts electrons to it. Electrons accumulate at the battery ***internal*** positive terminal.
Externally, the terminal the electrons leave is the cathode, and it is labelled as the negative terminal. Repeat…internally the cathode in a battery is the positive terminal but externally it becomes the negative terminal. That’s because electrons flow from a region of excess electrons to a region of less electrons, meaning they flow externally from the negative cathode to the to the less negative, or relatively positive anode.
It’s the same with a capacitor. If you charge a capacitor with an electron current, electrons accumulate in the charged plate. If you now put that charged capacitor in a series circuit with a switch, when you open the switch, electrons flow from the plate with the excess electrons to the plate with less electrons.
I have no idea where Tim Folkerts and Klint Klown get their Neanderthal ideas on current flow.
Gordon, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re wandering all over the place aimlessly, as usual.
At the negative terminal of a battery, electrons are both moving to the terminal AND away from the terminal. So is it “positive” or “negative”? It is “negative” by convention. By convention, a positive current is the current coming from the positive terminal of a battery. A positive current enters the negative terminal of a battery. Any REAL electrical engineer knows that. It’s very basic. You can’t understand it.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Please stop clogging the blog.
“An ampere of current is one coulomb of charge passing [a point in a circuit] in 1 second ”
Yes. The “in a circuit” is not needed. And it is “passing through a surface”. But yes, 1 amp is one coulomb passing in 1 second.
A 1 A electric current to the right through a surface could be 6.25 e20 protons moving to the right through the air, or 6.25 e20 electrons moving to the left in a wire. Or 3.125 e20 Mg2+ ions moving to the right in a solution.
The direction of the electric current is a DIFFERENT ISSUE than the direction of the particle current. You even said as much. “Current is a measure of charges” — not a measure of particles.
Tim,
“A 1 A electric current to the right through a surface could be 6.25 e20 protons moving to the right through the air”
I doubt there is experimental support for that notion. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
You doubt there is experimental evidence for proton beams?
Read carefully (if you feel like it) –
“Tim,
A 1 A electric current to the right through a surface could be 6.25 e20 protons moving to the right through the air
I doubt there is experimental support for that notion. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.”
Your bizarre response – “You doubt there is experimental evidence for proton beams?” is a really stupid attempt at a diversion.
About as silly as your last description of the GHE –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. ”
Like a pile of blankets, perhaps? Or a steaming pile of horse manure?
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Read carefully (if you feel like it)
The discussion is about the principle of electric currents.
In principle, can both electrons and protons carry a current?
In principle, if a stream of protons is moving to the right, is the electric current moving to the right?
In principle, if a stream of electrons is moving to the left, is the electric current moving to the right?
If you answer “yes” to the above three questions, then you agree with me. IF you answer “no” to any of the three, then you are wrong. Whether someone has actually constructed a 1.000 A proton beam is immaterial.
Tim,
I’ve heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I accept your flattery when you imitated me by saying “Read carefully (if you feel like it) “.
You may as well join the group of GHE cultists who appreciate my way with words sufficiently to copy them. It’s my pleasure to assist those who aspire to my standard.
You wrote –
“Whether someone has actually constructed a 1.000 A proton beam is immaterial.”
As Richard Feynman said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
I know you think that whether someone can describe the GHE is immaterial, but obviously some people believe the opposite. Your most current description of the GHE “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface” ” is completely pointless and irrelevant, if you are trying to justify some form of heating due to something you don’t even mention.
Carry on pretending that the scientific method does not depend on reproducible experiment.
100 pico amp beams are common in the PET industry.
Beams of both H- ions as well as H+ ions are produced.
Just a matter of scale.
> I doubt there is experimental support for that notion.
Step 1 – Denial.
> Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The planet effective temperature (Te) is not only a theoretically mistaken approach to planet surface temperature calculation.
It is also, by ignoring the smooth surface planets and moons very strong specular reflection, the (Te) is also being mistakenly calculated.
Thus, it is all wrong then.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The earthen global annualized Te median ~255K is measured by calibrated, precision instruments, Christos 24/7/365 with albedo band consisting of both diffuse and specular SW light. Earthen Te can also be theoretically calculated using 1LOT from the earthen atm. IR opacity as sometimes found in a first course meteorology text.
Ball4,
“The earthen global annualized Te median ~255K is measured by calibrated, precision instruments, ”
You keep repeating this nonsense. Accept reality.
Accepted. Measured means reality.
Ball4, your “255K” is bogus. It has no relation to anything except the cult’s imaginary sphere. By continuing to make false claims only reveals your cultism and ignorance.
Clint R, the global annualized 255K is measured by instrument. Imaginary sphere radiation can’t be measured by instrument.
Accept reality.
There is no measured “global annualized 255K”, Ball4.
You’re making up nonsense, again. That’s why you’re either ignorant or a cult addict, or both….
Just because Clint R doesn’t know there is a measured “global annualized 255K” doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Accept reality.
Ball4,
“The earthen global annualized Te median ~255K is measured by calibrated, precision instruments,”
You keep repeating this nonsense. Accept reality.
Ball4
” The earthen global annualized Te median ~255K is measured by calibrated, precision instruments… ”
Until now I could not see, in your posts, any link to a publication showing your claim.
*
What I found in between upon a long search does not match your assertion.
In a report hosted by Oxford University
Livia Thorpe, Investigating the radiance emitted by the Earth using AATSR data (2012)
http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/eodg/mphys_reports/2012_Thorpe.pdf
you see
” The mean surface temperature of the Earth is 288 K and the effective radiating temperature of the Earth-atmosphere system is 254 K [9]. The observed mean brightness temperatures in channels 6 and 7 fall between these two temperatures. ”
Under channel ‘6 and 7’ the report understands
Channel 6 11 μm Sea surface temp.
Channel 7 12 μm Sea surface temp.
*
[9] K. N. Liou. An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation.
Academic Press, 2nd edition, 2002.
Most direct links point to papers behind paywall.
Google Books link (with lots of pages missing, comme toujours):
https://tinyurl.com/KN-Liou-Intr-Atm-Rad
*
M(r)s Thorpe refers to a source which apparently, as far as is visible, presents calculations rather than observations.
*
Do you have something else to offer?
Bindidon,
There even seem to be different views on the definition of “effective radiating temperature”.
“It’s the temperature that would be measured by an infrared thermometer (radiometer) in outer space, pointed at the Earth.” – Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, Wash U.
I wonder if terms like “effective radiating temperature” are just attempts to muddy the waters, so to speak, and avoid reality? For example, implying the “Earth atmosphere system” has a “temperature” of any sort is odd. One might just as well say that because the core temperature is say 5500 K, and outer space is nominally 4 K, that the average is around 2750 K. Or maybe average general surface temperatures – +90 C to -90 C – and come up with an average of 0 C, 273 K!
Or you could look at the land actually used by humans. Maybe 10% of the Earth’s surface? 70% is ocean, deserts and mountains are over 50% of the remainder. My little bit seems fine, and that’s the only temperature which concerns me day to day.
I understand that there are reports saying that 2023 was the “hottest year ever” – plainly ridiculous, given that the surface was once molten, but the majority of people are pretty dim, and will believe anything they are told to.
I agree with you about Ball4’s bizarre assertions, backed an they are by nothing more than his fertile imagination.
“Do you have something else to offer?”
Not sure what else you need, Bindidon 5:17 pm. From your first link p. 1 for Earth system August 2002 to February 2012: “The Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (AATSR) measures the … brightness temperature … the Earths effective radiating temperature is about 255 K ….”.
Christos should pay attention to that report. Of course, over different time periods the satellite measured ~255K global mean will vary a bit.
Planet Mars’ Te =210K and Tmean =210K coincidence.
–
Planet Mars’ Te =210K, but it is a wrongly calculated planet (Te), planet Mars’ (Te) is calculated on the basis of planet Mars’ measured Albedo (a =0,250).
Planet Mars exibits a strong specular reflection, which is (similarly as in Earth’s case) being simply neglected.
When planet Mars’ strong specular reflection is taken into consideration, planet Mars’ Te =210K is corrected to
Te.correct=174K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mars global surface Tse,mean is ~215K, Christos, backed up by surface rover instruments. You have Mars Te about right at 210K.
You have not provided any source for Mars specular reflection.
Earth global Tmean =288K.
Earth, because of higher than Moon albedo (0,306 vs 0,11) receives 28% less solar EM energy.
Yet Earth is on average surface +68C warmer than Moon.
–
Backed up by Apollo Mission Moon Landing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4, please explain why Earth is on average +68C warmer than Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Apollo moon mission recorded temperatures below the surface which can be used for equilibrium lunar equator regolith temperatures to be near 240K globally by thermometer with albedo at 0.1. Regolith equilibrium temperatures drop off toward the poles for a global brightness Tse mean around 200-220K depending on assumptions for regolith refraction and emissivity.
These are consistent with Earth’s Te of 255K in the same solar orbit adjusted for regolith diffuse and specular albedo differences with surroundings of space. Moon doesn’t have the dirt & ocean surface emissivity & albedo or optical thickness of Earth’s surface atm. surroundings which are warmer than space so Earth Tse is measured around 288K globally. That’s pretty much your 68C, give or take.
Ball4,
“Moon doesnt have the dirt & ocean surface emissivity & albedo or optical thickness of Earths surface atm. surroundings which are warmer than space so Earth Tse is measured around 288K globally. Thats pretty much your 68C, give or take.”
–
It is not for +68C Earth’s vs Moon’s surface temperature. You are influenced by Mars’ Te =210K vs Tmean =210K coincidence.
–
Earth receives 28% less solar energy than Moon. Yet, Earth is not cooler than Moon, Earth is not close to Moon’s temperature, Earth is warmer on average +68C.
–
There is also the Diviner mission, according to Diviner the Moon’s ~196K average surface temperature.
It makes Earth on average ~ +90C warmer than Moon.
–
And, again, Earth receives 28% less solar EM energy, than Moon.
–
Do not argue the Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, because for the planets and moons in solar system the specular reflection is neglected.
–
Please, Ball4, do not correct me on
Mars’ Te =210K vs Mars’ Tmean =210K coincidence.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Moon “receives” same solar energy as Earth, it’s in the same solar orbit. Moon has different albedo, diffraction, emissivity due to different regolith properties than those of dirt, vegetation, and ocean.
Also, Ball4, not only our Moon all moons in solar system do not rotate about their own axis.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“all moons in solar system do not rotate about their own axis.”
… as observed from their orbited object but not all Christos, Phoebe and Hyperion and small enough Jupiter moons do rotate on their own axis as observed from their orbited object since they don’t present the same face at all times to that observer.
“You have not provided any source for Mars specular reflection.”
–
But you have – the surface rover instruments.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Rutherford fired a beam of protons through a gold leaf to observe the deflection of protons by nucleii in the gold leaf. What does that have to do with electric current through a copper wire? All protons in a copper conductor are firmly secured in nucleii of copper atoms. They cannot move to form a current flow.
The above is a misplaced reply to Tim Folkerts, March 19th at 8:20 PM. I think Tim is trying to establish his argument that protons are somehow involved in current flow in a copper conductor. Even in a semiconductor, where hole flow is used only to enable visualization, the holes have nothing to do with protons.
As I tried to explain, it you have an atom with 5 electrons naturally in its outermost valence shell, it is classed as electrically neutral. If one electron happens to leave the valence band, it allegedly leaves a hole, which is classified as a positive vacancy. Some people refer to such an atom as a positive ion but I regard that as a misuse of the word ion.
In a real ion, the entire atom has a relatively negative charge and it can be attracted in a fluid to an ion of the opposite polarity, or to an electrode of the opposite polarity. In a copper conductor, it is not possible for said ions to move, therefore I regard that theory as nonsense.
The silliness continues. In a copper conductor, if an electron in a copper ion’s valence band moves to an adjacent atom and leaves a ‘hole’, then another electron fills that hole, allowing the hole to move in the opposite direction, that silliness is called a hole flow by some. There is nothing moving via holes since empty spaces cannot carry a current.
Of course, Klint Klown and his new buddy Tim F, in their naivete, have bought into someone’s silliness. Unfortunately they have run into someone (me) who understand electrical theory at a deep level. I have lived, breathed, and applied it for years.
Wrong again, Gordon. You don’t understand ANY science.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Please stop clogging the blog.
“I think Tim is trying to establish his argument that protons are somehow involved in current flow in a copper conductor. “
Nope. Not even close!
All I am trying to establish is that positive charges (eg protons) moving to the right and negative charges (eg electrons) moving to the left both constitute an electric current to the right.
Until you address this very basic concept, you are just spinning your wheels on all sorts of silly, pointless tangents.
Tim,
“All I am trying to establish is that positive charges (eg protons) moving to the right and negative charges (eg electrons) moving to the left both constitute an electric current to the right.”
That’s a bit different to what you said before –
“A 1 A electric current to the right through a surface could be 6.25 e20 protons moving to the right through the air”.
As I said, I doubt there is experimental support for that notion. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
I suspect you are trying to divert attention from your rather silly “slightly better” description of the GHE – “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.”
If you are not too embarrassed, maybe you could provide your previous “slightly worse” GHE description. Did it also fail to mention any heating effect? Was it different to Entropic Man’s description of the GHE as a “stack of blankets”?
Or maybe Willard’s “not cooling, slower cooling” attempt.
Maybe your giant intellect could concentrate on finding a description of the GHE which refers to making something hotter, not colder. Only joking, you wouldn’t know how, would you? That’s because the GHE is a myth – a phenomena with no valid description at all. One that can be supported by experiment, that is.
Off you go, gnash your teeth, complain bitterly about “deniers”. I’ll keep laughing, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Over to you.
“I doubt there is experimental support for that notion.”
For what “notion”?
The “notion” that moving protons constitute a current?
The “notion” that 6.25e20 protons have +1 C of charge?
The “notion” that proton beams exist?
Tim,
Here’s what you wrote –
“A 1 A electric current to the right through a surface could be 6.25 e20 protons moving to the right through the air.”
As I said, I doubt there is experimental support for that notion. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Don’t blame me if you can’t understand what you wrote. If you meant to say something different, you could have, but you didn’t!
Rather like your “slightly better” effort relating to the GHE – “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.”
Did you really mean to write something else, or is that the best you can do? No wonder you want to carry on demanding that I play your silly semantic games. You are no doubt quite capable of playing with yourself, judging by some of your comments.
“As I said, I doubt there is experimental support for that notion.”
And as I replied, which “notion” do you want experimental support for?
Do you doubt experimental evidence that 6.25e20 protons has 1 C of charge?
Do you doubt experimental evidence that proton beams exist?
Do you doubt experimental evidence that moving protons constitute a current?
There is such overwhelming evidence for all of these. All are in perfect accord with experiment and theory.
Surely you are not demanding that one exact set of circumstances has to be experimentally confirmed before you will accept it. That would as silly as demanding “I know the moon’s gravity pulled on a 100 kg object, and I know it pulled on a hammer, and I know it pulled on a white object, but have you experimentally confirmed that the moon’s gravity pulls on a 100 kg white hammer?”
The beauty of science is that basic universal laws can be applied universally.
Mike Flynn,
That’s totally unrelated to when you thought Roy banned your name:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Why are you trying to evade your sock puppetry?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Thats totally unrelated to when you thought Roy banned your name:
Mik.e Flynn says:
September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Roy,
This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Why are you trying to evade your sock puppetry?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You repeated this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
That wasn’t your proudest sock puppet moment, now , was it?
Silly Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You repeated this comment:
Mik.e Flynn says:
September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Roy,
This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
That wasnt your proudest sock puppet moment, now , was it?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“What does that have to do with electric current through a copper wire?”
You still don’t get it. Electrons flow one direction in a wires. Electrons are negative. Therefore electric current flows the opposite direction as the electrons.
All your complaints that electrical engineers don’t understand simply confirms that *you* don’t understand.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Therefore electric current flows the opposite direction as the electrons.”
Is that right?
Mike Flynn,
You asked –
“Is that right?”
Yes, Tim indeed write “Therefore electric current flows the opposite direction as the electrons.”
Willard,
“Tim indeed write . ..”.
Is that right?
Mike Flynn,
Of course it’s right.
What do you think – it’s left?
Yes. It is right. It is a pretty simple statement and a pretty simple idea. I am not sure why you might be confused.
Tim, please stop trolling.
I just digged through some past comments, and found this:
https://postimg.cc/K1wpNh6v
The title should be: Change of slope (y) 1990-2022.
No specific CO2 signature seen; not sure what would really distinguish that from any other type of long-term warming.
Prior to 1990, there was too much uncertainty; I guess UAH data didn’t show clear warming until the mid-1990s.
Here’s a better picture:
https://imgur.com/CCeT1mA
What conclusions do you draw from this data?
There is no direct evidence of CO2-induced warming in this data, nor does increasing OLR. Is there a smoking gun that definitely proves CO2 is behind the trend?
There are three smoking guns,all due to CO2. All three increase the amount of energy stored in the climate system and hence increase temperatures.
1) The tropopause, the emission height at which CO2 radiates to space, increases with increasing CO2. This reduces the emission temperature and reduces the rate of emission in the CO2 band. The temperature at the original emission height increases and the temperature increase propagates down to the surface via the lapse rate.
2) As CO2 increases the shape of the outward longwave radiation spectrum changes. Theabsor*btion band around 15 micrometres widens and more of the outward thermal radiation is absorbed. This reduces the outward radiation to space and retains more heat in the atmosphere.
3) As the amount of outward longwave radiation in the 15 micrometres band decreases, the amount of downward longwave radiation increases. This works just way down through the atmosphere, increases the amount of radiation absor*bed by the surface and the surface temperature.
Walter,
Entropic Man is claiming that smoking guns (or CO2, or something) are increasing temperatures, and has burbled on for several meaningless and irrelevant paragraphs.
He could have just repeated his previous description “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”, and saved himself the effort of hammering away at his keyboard.
I agree with the insight of Baron Fourier who said that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Hence, the fact that the surface is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, and continuing to cool – according to the measurements of geophysicists, at least.
A stack of blankets provides no heat. Even a steaming hot pile of horse manure eventually cools. No GHE. No magical CO2 powered one way insulator heating the planet. Just thermometers reacting to man-made heat. Unless somebody can demonstrate otherwise, that’s good enough for me.
Mike Flynn,
Entropic Man is simply trying to intimate that Monkey Man’s quest to find “direct evidence” in temperature series a bit silly.
What are you braying about?
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man
“The tropopause, the emission height at which CO2 radiates to space, increases with increasing CO2. This reduces the emission temperature and reduces the rate of emission in the CO2 band. The temperature at the original emission height increases and the temperature increase propagates down to the surface via the lapse rate.”
The tropopause expands when the stratosphere warms. However, modern datasets show that the stratosphere has cooled.
But I know that ozone depletion, for example, is one variable that plays a role in determining the height of the troposphere, so the relationship between temperature and tropopause height isn’t straightforward.
“As CO2 increases the shape of the outward longwave radiation spectrum changes. Theabsor*btion band around 15 micrometres widens and more of the outward thermal radiation is absorbed. This reduces the outward radiation to space and retains more heat in the atmosphere.”
How can CO2 broaden the shape of the outward longwave radiation spectrum? According to mainstream theory, CO2 molecules have three vibrational modes that a*bsor*b and emit infrared radiation. Doesn’t that imply that it can only cause warming through specific wavelengths?
Walter
“the relationship between temperature and tropopause height isnt straightforward”
There is a test you can use to tell whether warming is due to increased GHGs or some non-GHG cause.
Other factors such as extra sunlight or reduced albedo warm the troposphere and warm the stratosphere.
Increased GHGs, especially CO2, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.
We observe a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, evidence that the warming is due to CO2.
“How can CO2 broaden the shape of the outward longwave radiation spectrum? ”
Research band spreading.
In the lab and in the atmosphere small quantities of CO2 absor*bs at the spot frequency of 15 micrometres. As the concentration increases the proportion of available radiation absor*bed at 15 micrometres also increases. Then the absor*btion saturates at 50%.
In a mixed gas such as the atmosphere further increase in CO2 causes the CO2 to begin absor*bing in a band either side of the spot frequency. Currently the band stretches from 13 micrometres to 17 micrometres and is widening as CO2 increases.
My old OR graph shows this. You can see the CO2 absor*btion band around wavenumber 650.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
EM,
You wrote –
“There is a test you can use to tell whether warming is due to increased GHGs or some non-GHG cause.”
Nonsense. That’s why you are not willing or able to describe this “test”. Probably because this “test” exists only in your imagination.
Your description of the GHE (“The GHE is a stack of blankets”) is pretty silly, isn’t it? No mention of either warming or GHGs! Maybe you can have a try at defining GHGs? Individual blankets in a stack?
The Earth is cooler than when it had a molten surface. Not enough blanket testing, do you think?
No GHE, Im afraid.
Hogle
” How can CO2 broaden the shape of the outward longwave radiation spectrum? ”
Try to digest this:
L’effet de serre atmosphrique : plus subtil qu’on ne le croit !
Jean-Louis Dufresne, Jacques Treiner
https://tinyurl.com/Dufresne-Treiner-2011
Google Translate is good enough.
*
Come back to us when you’ll have read the whole stuff.
I doubt you have enough scientific knowledge to contradict these two guys.
Ent and Bindi continue to demonstrate their ignorance of physics.
Ent believes because CO2 can absorb infrared, it can warm Earth’s 288K surface. And he can’t understand why his beliefs are wrong.
Bindi found another ‘paper’ he can’t understand. The very first sentence of the abstract (bold is my emphais): State-of-the-art radiative models can be used to calculate in a rigorous and accurate manner the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as well as its variation with concentration in water vapour or carbon dioxide.
If a computer model indicates CO2 can increase Earth’s 288K temperature, it is WRONG.
Puffman is a sock puppet.
As usual, while the climate top-specialist Clint R thinks I didn’t understand Dufresne/Treiner’s paper, he didn’t even read a tiny bit of it – except the abstract in English of course.
*
And the very best is that for the umpteenth time, one of these pseudo-skeptical boys discredits a paper just because it mentions the word ‘models’.
But wherever models are used to compute what fits his narrative, the pseudo-skeptical boy Clint R of course welcomes them.
Clint R should ask Roy Spencer with the help of what UAH infers temperatures from O2’s microwave emissions – to name only one example.
Binny,
“atmospheric greenhouse effect, ”
Unfortunately, they cannot describe this mythical effect. I’m surprised you take notice, in view of the fact that you have stated that you have no interest in the influence of CO2 on temperature.
Do you bother reading what you post, or do you have the attention span of a goldfish?
Mike Flynn is a sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate: The Movie
https://tinyurl.com/3djzb863
Related = Dilbert on climate science credibility
https://youtu.be/oZs3kL4N1CM?t=2233
SOLAR MIMINUM UPDATE
On teh Dilbert’s credibility:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/scott-adams-chris-and-matt-go-to-hell
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Heres you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Predictions by climate science that have already been observed.
A,
“Climate science?”
You must be joking. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Climate science is about as scientific as political science, social science, or domestic science.
The IPCC said that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Feel free to disagree, and pretend you can predict the future.
[the fortune sellers aka climate scientists are alive and well]
Ark, those aren’t predictions, they’re observations that accompany a natural warming trend.
Here are some actual predictions:
https://www.westernjournal.com/10-failed-global-warming-predictions/
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/content/2017-04-24-a-brief-history-of-fantastically-wrong-climate-change-predictions/
These aren’t “climate science predictions” per se, but simply the consequences of any natural multi-decadal or multi-century cycle of warming on Earth, as any scientist should know. In addition, almost all of your supposedly worrisome parameters are changing so minutely and slowly as to be of zero consequence, i.e. it’s all happened before, and many times. Learn something about paleo-climate! North of the Arctic Circle, where I hang out (and haul out!), life has never been better.
ark…Predictions by climate science that have already been observed.
1 / Global mean surface temperature has increased much as predicted in the 70s and 80s.
— Akasofu predicted a warming of 0.5C/century due to re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
2 / Ocean heat content has increased.
—ditto
3 / Stratosphere is cooling.
—so what?
4 / Ocean pH content has decreased.
—by how much?
5 / Sea levels are rising.
—rebound from LIA
6 / Atmospheric Oxygen has decreased.
—by how much?
7 / Ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 has changed.
—Roy explained this a few years back
8 / Winters are warming faster than summers.
—bs
9 / Nights are warming faster than days.
—bs.
10/ Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world.
—during 1 month of summer…see LIA
11/ Permafrost is thawing.
—LIA
12/ Artic sea ice is shrinking and becoming thinner.
—LIA
13/ Glaciers are retreating.
—LIA
14/ Emission height where CO2 emits infrared radiation to space has increased.
—-bs.
Now I am become more main I3/-\57/-\/2|) fella.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Deniers trying to hold on to the narrative: https://youtu.be/lUPet7iZJfE
“Deniers trying to hold on to the narrative:”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Funny. Yeah, most science deniers probably don’t understand wind.
You know the type — They believe ice cubes can boil water….
A monthly time series showing the 120 month running linear trend in UAH 6.0 LT’s monthly time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16LzLoaPt5R7qGeXbzCEEAgecDu1tMaX3/view
UAH 6.0 LT’s 120 month running trend has itself a positive trend:
0.03 ± 0.008 C / decade^2
*
Opinions about running trends vary from ‘It is quite useful’ to ‘It is completely useless’.
*
Whether or not CO2 has to do with it is a debate which does not interest me at all. We all lack the scientific competence to discuss this point.
Bindi, your lack of interest may be linked to your inability to understand the science.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Whether or not CO2 has to do with it is a debate which does not interest me at all. We all lack the scientific competence to discuss this point.”
I’m glad to see you have abandoned your interest in CO2, and the mythical GHE as influencing your graphs.
As regards your claiming that everybody else shares your lack of scientific knowledge, I beg to differ. If I were a betting man, I would be prepared to wager a large sum that you could not support your bizarre assertion that nobody in the world is smarter than you when it comes to the matter of physical laws.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
[slightly presumptuous ex fanatical GHE cultist]
Aaaah, the arrogant and ignorant Flynnson blathers and blathers again.
Ignored.
Binny,
You wrote
“Whether or not CO2 has to do with it is a debate which does not interest me at all. We all lack the scientific competence to discuss this point.”
Im glad to see you have abandoned your interest in CO2, and the mythical GHE as influencing your graphs.
As regards your claiming that everybody else shares your lack of scientific knowledge, I beg to differ. If I were a betting man, I would be prepared to wager a large sum that you could not support your bizarre assertion that nobody in the world is smarter than you when it comes to the matter of physical laws.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Please not that you will have to read this comment before you can ignore it again.
[slightly presumptuous ex fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
” We all lack the scientific competence to discuss this point. ”
The first recipients of this sentence are the ball-on-the-string specialists.
Binny,
Here’s what you wrote –
“Whether or not CO2 has to do with it is a debate which does not interest me at all. We all lack the scientific competence to discuss this point.”
Would you care to write what you really meant to write? The connection between CO2 and a “ball-on-the-string specialists” eludes me.
Maybe you are confused. You could always use the excuse you used before, that you never intentionally wrote what you did, because it’s nonsense. It’s all a bit confusing, so maybe you could clarify your seemingly contradictory statements?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is what you wrote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Are you really that impotent that you have no idea how WP blogs work?
“Are you really that impotent that you have no idea how WP blogs work?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Binny is a monkey.
walter…please don’t insult monkeys. They are far more intelligent than Binny.
Binny thinks that ice melts in the Arctic in December and that snowfall in the Alaskan late spring is a less useful metric to track than monthly averages.
Monkey Man believes that mind probing will get him out of his confusion between global and regional temperatures.
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man is one of the kids in a suit.
Hogle
” Binny thinks that ice melts in the Arctic in December and that snowfall in the Alaskan late spring is a less useful metric to track than monthly averages. ”
You’re lying disingenuously here and you know it.
All you can do is, instead of technically contradicting me,
– to remain endlessly on the polemical level
– to discredit and denigrate what I do based solely on your personal, superficial narrative (see your post dated March 16, 2024 at 4:34 PM)
– to insult me.
That doesn’t bother me much, nor does the endless nonsense that Robertson and Swenson spout every day.
If you were a brave person, instead of cowardly calling me a monkey, you would help put an end to Robertson’s and other people’s repeated lies, such as in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1650937
But… obviously you prefer to comfortably keep butt-kissing him – apparently because you share all his views about our global climate.
*
I wouldn’t wonder if one day, you too would suddenly start claiming like Robertson that the Moon does not spin, that time does not exist, that Einstein is wrong, etc etc etc etc.
*
I’ll conveniently reply to your March 16 post, but have no hope to change even a tiny bit of your mad, polemical opinion about me.
So what!
Binny,
If someone said “Binny thinks that ice melts in the Arctic in December and that snowfall in the Alaskan late spring is a less useful metric to track than monthly averages”, a more rational approach might be to ask what mindreading academy he attended, and suggest that he ask for a refund, if he has read your thoughts incorrectly.
Just saying you feel insulted is acknowledging that you lack self esteem.
If you think someone is not worth listening to, why listen? Grow a backbone, just decide not to feel insulted, offended, or annoyed by someone whose opinions are worth nothing to you!
Be a man, not a mouse.
Again this stoopid blathering from this blog’s most boring tr0ll.
Who are you to accuse me of butt-kissing? You spend your time attacking skeptics and never alarmist viewpoints, even the most extreme ones. I can admit to prejudice and being wrong; I’ve done it here before, but can you? You never reply critically to Entropic man’s CO2 death cult, for example. You take their side. You also said that you like this kind of attention.
And between the two of us, you’ve bitten my ankles more and insulted me more, both in frequency and with bigger words. There have been times when I’ve left you alone, but you proceed to do so.
> Who are you to accuse me of butt-kissing?
Mr. Asshat.
Don’t they teach grammer at your home school?
Better a monkey than a disingenuous denialist like you.
EM,
You can no more describe a “denialist” than you can describe the GHE!
Here’s your attempt at describing the mythical GHE “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”.
Can you better with “denialist”?
One who denies, perhaps?
I certainly don’t deny that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, or are you saying I’m wrong, and that I am denying the fact that you dont seem to be know what you are talking about.
If you deny that, does that make you a denialist, or just a silly GHE cultist?
Over to you.
Elephant man,
It’s better to be called a disingenuous denialist by a death cultist like you.
Well done. Monster’s exchanged the customary insults, shall we return to discussing your ignorance of atmospheric physics?
Yes. But first I need to finish reading those sources that you and Binny referenced to me.
Monkey Man is one of the two kids in a suit.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Klint Klown continues to founder on electrical theory…
“At the negative terminal of a battery, electrons are both moving to the terminal AND away from the terminal. So is it positive or negative? It is negative by convention. By convention, a positive current is the current coming from the positive terminal of a battery”.
***
The basic principle of a chemical cell battery is that electrons within the electrolyte, released during chemical action in the electrolyte at both poles of the battery, gravitate toward a pole that is positive wrt to them. Even in solution, negative charges like that of the electron gravitate toward positive areas.
This presents a major problem because electrons normally move in an external circuit from the negative cathode to the positive anode. So, you can’t very well have a cathode that is positive internally and negative externally, but that’s what they do.
Diehards get around this by using conventional current flow but many of them get that wrong too. Conventional current flow is about an imaginary positive test charge that flows positive to negative. No such charge has ever been found in physic, the notion dating back to the 1920s before electron flow theory was well established. Only negatively charged particles called electrons flow in circuits and the must flow negative to positive.
If one looks at the symbol for a diode, the cathode (bar) is always marked -ve and the anode (arrow) +ve. In a vacuum tube, electrons are produced at the cathode and move through the tube to the positive anode. In other words, in electronics and the electrical field the cathode is always regarded as negative and the anode positive. In chemistry, they introduce an obfuscation which catches the less wary.
Conventional current flows from the anode to the cathode but no one, including Klint Klown and Tim F can explain the alleged positive to negative current. That’s because it does not exist, the current actually is an electron current and flows through the bar (cathode) and into the arrow head, anode. Same with transistors. Klint Klown, based on his reply above, suggests electrons are not fussy and will happily move positive to negative or negative to positive.
Matters like this emphasize to me the education of Klinton Klown. He obviously learns stuff by reading authority figures on the Net, and subsequently comes away with a misunderstanding of how things actually work. It amazes me that he was actually able to get it that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Now that Binny shows discipline, Bordo tries to bait him.
What an asshat!
Willard, please stop trolling.
That will be Mr. Asshat to slime dwellers like you.
Fine. Mr. Asshat it is!
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Conventional current flow is about an imaginary positive test charge that flows positive to negative. ”
No, conventional current is about the mathematical definition of current. I = dQ/dt. This definition doesn’t care what the charge carriers are.
If one plate of a capacitor starts out positive and the other starts out negative, and then later both are neutral, the electrical current was from positive to negative. Period.
test
binny van der klown…
“The first recipients of this sentence are the ball-on-the-string specialists”.
***
Binny cannot fathom the simplicity of a ball on a string for explaining a motion in which an orbiting body must keep the same face pointed at the point about which it is orbiting. The ball is constrained by the string making it impossible for it to rotate about a local axis. Yet spinners believe that the Moon, orbiting in the same manner, keeping the same face pointed at Earth, is actually rotating exactly once per orbit.
It’s bad enough thinking it rotates on a local axis but it is mind-boggling that the Moon should rotate exactly once per orbit. How can a witches-tale like tidal locking possibly explain that?
I suppose now that Klint Klown will tell me I am wrong on that theory as well.
It’s mind-boggling that Gordo still can’t understand that the Tidal Locking of the Moon does not result in the views of Full Moons from the Earth presenting the same “face” every time. What we observe are called Librations because the full Moon occurs at different points around the elliptical orbit. The Moon is not a ball-on-a-string following a circular path.
Gordo never learns, he just keeps pontificating the same anti-science.
E. Swanson, you’re correct that Gordon doesn’t understand lunar motion, but you don’t either.
Tidal locking does NOT apply to Moon. The reason is simple. Earth’s gravity can NOT apply a torque to Moon. Gordon seems to understand that because he’s paid attention to my comments.
The “full Moon” occurs when Earth is between Moon and Sun. We see the lunar disk entirely illuminated. “Full Moon” would occur even if lunar orbit were perfectly circular. It has NOTHING to do with an ellipse.
An ellipse does cause libration, but that is NOT a real motion. It is only an apparent motion, as viewed from Earth. If lunar orbit were a perfect circle, there would be no lunar libration.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of lunar motion. It is a model of “orbiting without spin”. Your cult has NEVER been able to understand that simple fact.
” Earth’s gravity can NOT apply a torque to Moon. ”
Oh really? Where do you have that from, pseudo-skeptical genius Clint R?
Bindi feigns an interest in science — “Where do you have that from…”. But his immature remarks reveal he’s too much a child to understand — “…pseudo-skeptical genius Clint R?”
So answering his question is just for responsible adults. The cult won’t be able to understand.
Earth can NOT produce a torque on Moon. The physics is quite simple. Gravity produces an equal acceleration on all parts of Moon. So no torque is produced.
The evidence is clear, just from observation. Libration is an example that Earth produces no torque on Moon. If gravity could torque Moon, there would be no libration as Moon would always spin to exactly face Earth even in its elliptical orbit.
Simple.
But I can predict not one of the cult will understand.
Earth’s gravity produces an acceleration on our moon mass equally only if there are no lunar mascons. NASA’s Grail mission measured there exist lunar mascons. Question is: can Clint R accept reality?
As predicted, Ball4 doesn’t understand. And Bindi has left the building….
But, let’s turn this into a learning experience for others — Why can’t gravity use mascons to produce a torque on Moon?
Any answers from the “Spinners”?
Clint R
The Moon is shaped somewhat like an American football, with two bulges on opposite sides.
The surface closest to the Earth is moving slower than the orbital speed for its distance and is trying to fall inwards.
The surface furthest from the Earth is moving faster than the orbital speed for its distance and tries to move outwards.
The two forces stretch the Moon along the Earth-Moon line, giving the two bulge shape.
The Earth’s gravity pulls hardest on the nearest bulge, creating a torque which stabilise s the Moon with the long axis of the “football” pointing towards Earth.
Thus locking it into its "orbit without spin" position.
Graham D. Warner almost gets it.
Little Willy will never get it.
Team Science gets it:
“Tidal locking between a pair of co-orbiting astronomical bodies occurs when one of the objects reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit.”
Ent, the simple ball-on-a-string would experience the same slight distortions. But, it still orbits without spin, just like Moon. You’re soooooo desperate.
And, you forgot to answer the question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651341
Yes indeed, Little Willy.
In the case of our moon, and indeed all tidally-locked moons, the end state of that tidal-locking is motion where the same side of the moon always faces the inside of the orbit. That is “orbit without spin”.
Our two Sky Dragon cranks are always a step behind Team Science:
“In the case where a tidally locked body possesses synchronous rotation, the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
DREMT, Clint R always stop writing a few essential words short of physical reality:
In the case of our moon, and indeed all tidally-locked moons, the end state of that tidal-locking is motion where the same side of the moon always faces the inside of the orbit. That is “orbit without spin” as observed from the central orbited object.
For that to be the case, Little Willy, “orbit without spin” would have to be where the body keeps the same face always oriented towards a distant star, whilst it orbits.
And so Graham D. Warner tries to insist that his idiosyncratic concept matters in the grand scheme of things.
Team Science has a better concept:
“In celestial mechanics, an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point.”
Spin is another motion altogether.
Sure. They are two separate motions:
1) “Orbit without spin”.
2) Spin.
I would shorten “orbit without spin” to “orbit”, were it not for all the confusion that causes.
Obviously “orbit without spin” involves the object moving around a curved trajectory either way you look at it (“Spinner” or “Non-Spinner”), so nobody should have a problem with the definition you posted.
Graham D. Warner would indeed replace Team Science’s concept of orbit with Moon Dragon cranks’ pet concept!
What else is new?
DREMT
“For that to be the case, Little Willy, orbit without spin would have to be where the body keeps the same face always oriented towards a distant star, whilst it orbits. ”
Very close. An astrophysicist would measure rotation relative to the inertial reference frame (or the distant stars which amounts to the same thing).
A body which orbits while not rotating relative to the distant stars shows “orbit without spin”. The Hubble telescope spends most of its time doing this.
My description of how the Moon’s asymmetric shape allows it to be torqued by Earth’s gravity is a separate matter, not linked to the spin debate.
Entropic Man is genuinely going to act like I have never heard of an inertial reference frame. Hilarious.
Here’s an important type of inertial reference frame:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
Wrt that reference frame, the moon can be described as performing “orbit without spin”, as the “Non-Spinners” see “orbit without spin”. Or, it can be described as orbiting whilst spinning, if you go with how the “Spinners” see “orbit without spin”.
“gravity produces an equal acceleration on all parts of Moon. So no torque is produced.”
Oh? So Newton got the inverse square law for gravity wrong then?
Clint, as usual, is highly confused.
The TEAM again declares their own personal definitions.
Since nobody else uses these, this is rather pointless to debate.
Nate, if you want to discuss Moon,
1. Answer the question: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651341
2. Propose a valid model of “orbiting without spin”.
Let’s see if you have the basic knowledge for an adult discussion.
No, tr0ll Clint R: I didn’t leave the building.
” Earths gravity can NOT apply a torque to Moon. ”
I’m awaiting your scientific proof.
” Earth can NOT produce a torque on Moon. The physics is quite simple. Gravity produces an equal acceleration on all parts of Moon. So no torque is produced.”
That has nothing to do with science. It’s blah blah at ball-on-a-string level.
Sorry Bindi, but until you can provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’ve “left the building”.
As in, you’ve got NOTHING.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Puffman may be a sock puppet, but he is a natural.
I’m not replacing any concepts, Little Willy. Currently, astronomy uses the "Spinners" version of "orbit without spin" (or, more simply, "orbit"), where the orbiting object always keeps the same face oriented towards some distant star. This is self-evident, as astronomy currently believes the moon rotates on its own axis.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Im not replacing any concepts,
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Sure. They are two separate motions: 1) “Orbit without spin”.
Yes, those are two things I said. What’s the problem?
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
Sometimes he is no better than Mike Flynn.
No idea what the supposed contradiction or inconsistency is, between those two quotes. If that is “playing dumb”, so be it.
” The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of lunar motion. It is a model of ‘orbiting without spin’. ”
Any logician will tell you that in this case, the lunar motion cannot be described by the ball-on-a-string.
Thans for confirming what unlike you I understand since decades.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of lunar motion. It is a model of “orbiting without spin”. Your cult has NEVER been able to understand that simple fact.
BoS is a model of “orbiting without spin” as observed by the ball spinner. Clint R just doesn’t ever add the last essential detail.
The ball doesn’t spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame.
Clint R still did not understand.
” The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of lunar motion. It is a model of ‘orbiting without spin’. ”
Any logician will tell you that in this case, the lunar motion cannot be described by the ball-on-a-string; hence, lunar motion has nothing in common with ‘orbiting without spin’.
Regardless the topic: you weasel, weasel and weasel.
Sorry Bindi, but dealing directly with the issue as I do is NOT being a “weasel”.
Your continual rejection of the simple ball-on-a-string, while being unable to propose a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, is weaseling.
Got a viable model yet?
Also, don’t forget to answer the question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651341
Don’t weasel out.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
If your silly ball-on-string isn’t a model of the motion of the Moon and but of an orbit without spin, what does it entail regarding Sky Dragon cranks who claim that the Moon orbits but does not spin?
“Hey Puffman, riddle me this ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The ball doesnt spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame.”
Which is indeed a rotating reference frame, since the forward direction is a vector that is ROTATING.
Thus Clint totally undermines DREMTs insistence that reference frames don’t matter!
Nate, if you want to discuss Moon,
1. Answer the question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651341
And,
2. Propose a valid model of “orbiting without spin”.
Let’s see if you possess the basic knowledge to have an adult discussion.
You clearly explain why Moon is not spinning in a ROTATING reference frame.
Thus in the inertial non-rotating frame of the stars, it must be spinning. So you agree with astronomy, and disagree with DREMT.
Again Nate, if you want to discuss Moon,
1. Answer the question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651341
And,
2. Propose a valid model of “orbiting without spin”.
Let’s see if you possess the basic knowledge to have an adult discussion.
“Again Nate, if you want to discuss Moon”
Clint is obviously DESPERATE to change the subject, after being caught revealing that he understands that the Moon is not spinning in its rotating reference frame, contradicting DREMTs claims otherwise.
Oh well!
"The ball doesn’t spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame."
Yes, the ball doesn’t spin relative to a rotating reference frame…and it’s not spinning relative to an inertial reference frame. As Swanson puts it:
"His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM"
Anyone disagreeing can argue directly with Swanson.
No argument necessary, Swanson is observing from the location of ball spinner.
> 2. Propose
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Puffman has nothing much than the contrarian two-step!
Not sure why anyone is confused that the vector pointing in the forward direction of the Moon’s motion is indeed rotating.
Thus if as Clint believes, the Moon is spinning relative to this vector, then he believes, as astronomy also does, that it is spinning wrt to a rotating reference frame!
Then obviously DREMT is wrong when he says that reference frames have nothing to do with it.
Oh well!
When reference frames are specified, Ball4 switches to the second layer of his obfuscation, his "as observed from" crap…which is simply something that he’s made up.
Let’s once again settle the reference frame issue, here.
Now, to quantify the rate of axial rotation of an object, "Non-Spinners" will of course use a rotating reference frame, and "Spinners" will use an inertial reference frame. That’s simply a consequence of the fact that the "Non-Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin" is movement as per the MOTL, and that the "Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin" is movement as per the MOTR. To keep "spin" separate from their "orbit without spin" motion, "Non-Spinners" will necessarily have to use that rotating reference frame. To keep "spin" separate from their "orbit without spin" motion, "Spinners" will necessarily have to use an inertial reference frame. This doesn’t mean that reference frames resolve the moon issue, though.
Obviously, what resolves the moon issue is whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL, or the MOTR. That’s all it comes down to. Reference frames are a complex, elaborate distraction from the issue which gives people like Ball4 endless ways to obfuscate.
Arrgh
Correction:
Thus if as Clint believes, the Moon is NOT spinning relative to this vector, then he believes, as astronomy also does, that it is NOT spinning wrt to a rotating reference frame!
Thus wrt the inertial frame it must be spinning, is what Clint has argued.
Further, in the specific case of the ball on a string, it is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to any reference frame. The Objective Physical Reality (OPR) for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis. This is as discussed and agreed with Swanson, further down-thread. Swanson just believes the issue is a red herring, as he does not relate the motion of the ball on a string to the moon’s motion.
So, that’s that. My 1) and 3) are correct, as always.
Oh, I mentioned my 1) and 3) without a link to clarify what I was referring to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
Also, I used the terminology “MOTL” and “MOTR” without clarifying what I meant, either. Tsk, tsk. “MOTL” refers to the “moon on the left”, and “MOTR” refers to the “moon on the right”, in the GIF below:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Even the ball on a string isn’t spinning relative to its vector of forward motion.
I don’t see how anyone could claim it was spinning in a reference frame in which the direction of the vector of forward motion is fixed.
Which is a rotating reference frame.
Thus in the fixed reference frame of the stars, it must be spinning.
Oh well!
For some reason Graham D. Warner found a way to occupy another subthread with a pet topic that has little to do with Puffman’s.
Clint R mentioned reference frames, Little Willy. I’m just happy to have (once again) settled the issue of why they don’t resolve the moon debate. I don’t expect you or any of the “Spinner” regulars to understand, it’s over your heads, obviously.
“So, thats that. My 1) and 3) are correct, as always.”
“3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Dont forget that this has a specific meaning, which I have outlined numerous times.”
Yeah, we have learned in the lengthy discussion about the GPE, that what DREMT declares to be correct, is extremely likely to be BS. And usually based on extreme ill-logic and ignoring the plain facts.
So NOPE, just nope, on #3.
Only thing I would add is that anyone who thinks reference frames do resolve the moon issue needn’t argue any other point about the moon. So, for Ball4, he is at least logically consistent, in that he believes that reference frames resolve the moon issue, and so that is all he ever argues. That one point, over and over and over again.
Whereas a lot of “Spinners” seem to argue that reference frames resolve the moon issue when it suits them, then get involved with arguing about other moon-related matters like “libration in longitude” or “definitions of orbit” etc, thus undermining their position that reference frames resolve the moon issue! If reference frames resolve the moon issue, as they assert when they feel like it, then that’s it. That’s all they should argue. The fact that they then argue about other things shows that really, part of them knows that reference frames don’t really resolve the moon issue.
3) is correct, as I explained. All four points are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon. Those who disagree can argue against Swanson on 1), Nate on 2), Bindidon on 3) and just about every “Spinner” on 4).
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Puffman is talking about his balls on a string.
He insists that it’s NOT a model of lunar motion.
And Graham D. Warner still peddles his crap about the Moon.
Another creepy double bind by our two Moon Dragon cranks.
Little Willy whinges about something or other.
“”The ball doesnt spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame.”
How can the argument not be about reference frames, according to DREMT, but then Clint claims that there is a ‘correct’ reference frame to see that the Moon is not spinning?
And FYI, that frame is a rotating frame.
And no, DREMT doesnt get to use his personal definitions of things, that no one else uses, as evidence of anything.
As noted, DREMTs arguments are pure assertions lacking evidence, based on illogic, and made-up ‘facts’.
“The Objective Physical Reality (OPR) for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis.”
Completely made up. Purely subjective, can’t be proven or falsified, so not a valid concept in science.
I’ll just repeat the argument, for the benefit of any readers:
Now, to quantify the rate of axial rotation of an object, "Non-Spinners" will of course use a rotating reference frame, and "Spinners" will use an inertial reference frame. That’s simply a consequence of the fact that the "Non-Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin" is movement as per the MOTL, and that the "Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin" is movement as per the MOTR. To keep "spin" separate from their "orbit without spin" motion, "Non-Spinners" will necessarily have to use that rotating reference frame. To keep "spin" separate from their "orbit without spin" motion, "Spinners" will necessarily have to use an inertial reference frame. This doesn’t mean that reference frames resolve the moon issue, though.
Obviously, what resolves the moon issue is whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL, or the MOTR. That’s all it comes down to. Reference frames are a complex, elaborate distraction from the issue which gives people like Ball4 endless ways to obfuscate.
ALL available definitions of Orbit describe it as a path through space around a central body.
As such, nothing is specified about HOW to follow that path.
Thus rotation of the body is left unspecified. It is an independent motion.
Thus to DEFINE orbiting without spin as a Orbiting with a specific value of rotation, as DREMT wants to define it, MAKES NO SENSE, and is fiction.
It makes as much sense as defining ‘Orbiting while not red’, as orbiting while green.
It is plain stoopid.
Two links that might be of some use. The first is to Swanson explaining why the OPR for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating about its own internal axis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653285
So anybody disagreeing on that can argue it out with Swanson.
The second link is to a discussion about “absolute rotation” which might help to shed some further light on the OPR issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1652221
“Theyre talking about OPR Objective Physical Reality.”
A purely made-up concept like this cannot be used in a debate.
It is subjective, undefinable, not falsifiable, thus not useful in science.
Physics uses math to represent reality, specifically measurable quantities, and then make mathematical predictions about measurable quantities. It is not reality.
…and, if you scroll up one comment from where my second link takes you, you will find this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
In which you will find it confirmed that the idea of something objectively not rotating, or objectively rotating, is nothing new to physics. Hence “OPR”, Objective Physical Reality.
It’s quite simple, as Swanson already explained:
“His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM.”
If something is physically unable to rotate about its own internal axis, then the OPR for that object is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Cult Leader Grammie continues to promote his BoS and MoL/MoR scenarios, deftly ignoring the fact that neither applies to the rotation of Moon. A rotating body has angular momentum, which must be quantified relative to an inertial reference frame. The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once an orbit with an axis tilted to the orbit’s plane.
DREMT yet again misses a few essential words since if something (BoS) is physically unable to rotate about its own internal axis, then the OPR for that object is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis as observed from the location of the BoS spinner.
“A rotating body has angular momentum, which must be quantified relative to an inertial reference frame.”
Ah, but the ball on a string is a rotating body. However, the ball is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball itself. The OPR, as you have agreed, is that it is not rotating about its own internal axis. Yet, your angular momentum argument would have us placing the origin of our inertial reference frame through the CoM of the ball itself, and thus erroneously concluding that the ball is rotating on its own internal axis!
You must see the problem. There is orbital angular momentum, and there is spin angular momentum. The ball on a string should have orbital angular momentum but no spin angular momentum. However, that will no doubt not be what you tell me the ball on a string has. You will no doubt try to tell me that it has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum. Which contradicts your earlier assertion that the ball cannot rotate on its own internal axis.
So we are left with a bit of a predicament. If the ball on a string has spin angular momentum according to physics, then the physics definition of spin angular momentum is at odds with what we know about the ball on a string. In other words, objects that are objectively not rotating on their own internal axes can still be considered to possess spin angular momentum! So, describing something as having spin angular momentum becomes meaningless as regards whether or not that object is objectively spinning.
… when the location of the observer is not stated.
Again DREMT is misapplying a physics concept. Absolute rotation is the idea of detecting rotation in the inertial frame of the stars, and determining that one can detect it via physical phenomena like centrifugal force. Thus the inertial frame is not rotating.
This applies to the Moon or the ball on the string in determining that they both DO have detectable rotation.
Thats why it makes sense to treat rotation as an independent variable from eg orbit.
Ball4 again switches to his "as observed from" crap, which he does whenever the reference frame is specified.
He has ignored so far responding to the concept of "absolute rotation" – which, as we can note from the Wikipedia article, involves the rotation being an objective fact, regardless of your choice of reference frame:
"Bouncing ball in a rotating space station: The objective reality of the ball bouncing off the outer hull is confirmed both by a rotating and by a non-rotating observer, hence the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference."
Again, the rotation of the ball on a string about an external axis is an objective fact, and so it is that the ball on a string is not rotating about an internal axis.
Thus the Moon has rotation which can be detected with physical experiments on the Moon, and the direction of its fixed axis can be detected. And it does not align with the orbital axis.
Nothing to do with its orbit, which is simply a change in the position of its COM, which by itself could not be detected as a rotation.
Thus Astronomy lists the parameters for the orbits of bodies, separately from the parameters of its rotation.
“Again, the rotation of the ball on a string about an external axis is an objective fact”
Nah, since DREMT knows there is an alternate description of that motion, both equally valid.
But let’s suppose that one description, rotation around an external axis, is simpler, and therefore preferred.
That doesn’t imply it will be simpler and preferred for planetary motion. Because it most certainly is not.
Ball4 hasn’t ignored the concept of absolute rotation as DREMT claims. All motion is relative. That’s why they call it relativity.
Well you have ignored it as far as actually commenting about it goes, Ball4. I take it you disagree with the concept of absolute rotation, then. Even though, obviously, the ball on a string is physically unable to rotate on its own internal axis, as Swanson so helpfully pointed out. Will you be arguing against Swanson then, Ball4? Or will you just put words in his mouth again, and claim that he was talking about how the ball is "unable to rotate on its own internal axis as observed from the location of the BoS spinner"?
We know that the ball is rotating about an external axis, since that’s what is actually, physically occurring. It’s being swung around an external axis on the end of a string. It’s not being "translated in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis", although that’s an abstract sort of way you could look at it, whilst realising that’s not what’s really happening. As Little Willy put it:
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not".
But, I know you people have completely lost touch with reality, so maybe I’m expecting too much.
“Well you have ignored it..”
It? What does DREMT mean by “it”? I’ve already pointed out nothing to argue with E. Swanson. Nothing at all abstract about actual motion of BoS. Again, all motion is relative. No exceptions.
Bizarre Ball4 barks some bullshit.
The BOS is not an independent rigid body as planets and moons are. Its motion is constrained just like the toy moon on a rotating arm.
Knowing that their motions are constrained doesn’t help us understand planetary motions which are not constrained by arms or strings.
“I’ve already pointed out nothing to argue with E. Swanson…”
…if you put the words in his mouth that you want him to say. However, back in reality, he didn’t actually say anything about “as observed from”. So, you have to assume he meant what he said. Which was:
“His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM.”
Sure, as I wrote no argument with Swanson’s the BoS can not rotate around its CoM since it is held from rotating about its COM by the string! It is also forced to rotate inertially around its COM by the string. Let’s see if DREMT can figure that out with DREMT’s newly acquired grasp of all motion is relative a few minutes ago.
Wrt an inertial reference frame centred on the swinger of the ball on a string, and as observed from outside the ball’s “orbit”, the ball is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not rotating about its own internal axis.
No, outside the ball’s orbit that observer sees all faces of the ball so it is observed spinning on its own axis.
No, outside the ball’s “orbit” the observer sees all faces of the ball, so it is observed rotating about an external axis and not rotating about its own internal axis.
Still don’t understand rotation, do you, Ball4?
And you definitely don’t understand absolute rotation.
If the ball were not rotating on it own r, then that outside orbit observer sees only one face.
As you’ve been told before DREMT, observed outside the orbit, the ball has inertial angular momentum around r and R. The BoS is thus observed outside the orbit spinning on its r. The ball could also be NOT spinning on r, while orbiting, but the string forces it to spin once on r for each orbit on R.
It is as I said, Ball4, and as Swanson said. The OPR for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis.
As soon as you get refuted on one level you switch up the obfuscation and bring in angular momentum or whatever else you want to throw at the wall.
You will now repeat yourself.
The OPR for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis as observed from the spinner location and frame being forced by the string. Once again, DREMT forgets to specify location of observation.
Observed outside the orbit, the string is forcing all sides of the ball to be shown to that observer and frame.
Ball4, I specified the reference frame and your made-up “location of observation” requirement already. That hasn’t changed. You can assume it applies to all comments on the subject of the ball on a string, unless otherwise specified.
An object that physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis whilst it moves, will not be rotating on its own internal axis whilst it moves.
You can’t fault that logic, so you have to edit the sentence and add in all your “inertially” or “as observed from” remarks in order to obfuscate a supremely simple and straightforward issue.
klint…thats a ratty thing to say about me, your best buddy. Why, I just stood up for you. We willy claimed you ate poop sammiches and I told him that’s a lie since you don’t like bread.
Gordon appears to be in some sick competition with silly willy to see which can be the most childish tr0ll here.
I just defended you, what more can I do?
I have been over that multiple times but I guess you were playing hookey on those day. You’ll need to improve your attendance or we will be forced to take away your hall pass.
Libration has nothing to do with a rotation of the Moon, it is strictly a problem of view angle. If the Moon was in a circular orbit, there would be no libration because we would always see the near face head on. However, the lunar orbit is slightly elliptical, and that causes the near face to be slightly askew from our view angle at certain parts of the orbit. Therefore we can see a few degrees around the near edge.
As proof, there is no libration at either end of the major axis because at those two positions our view angle is perpendicular. Maximum libration occurs midway between the major axis and the semi-major axis when the Moon is in the farthest quadrants of the orbit.
I have described longitudianl libration but Dremt was good enough to produce an explanation for latitudinal libration. It is caused by the 5 degree angle of the lunar orbit to the ecliptic. As the Moon follows that slight relative slope, we see more of the poles at certain parts of the orbit.
There is no motion of the Moon during libration other than its tangential velocity. No rotation of any kind about a local axis.
… as observed from Earth.
Gordo doubles down again:
He (and the rest of the no-spin cult) continues to ignore well known facts about the motions of the Moon, beginning with Cassini’s laws (1693). The Moon rotates once an orbit.
E. Swanson, where have you been? Cassini has been discussed many times before. Are you trying to be brain-dead, or is your condition natural?
Cassini was an astrologer. His so-called “laws” ain’t laws. They’re easily debunked. See such simple demonstrations as the ball-on-a-string, or the pencil-in-a-cup. Moon only orbits, it does not spin.
E. Swanson, like the rest of his cult, has NO knowledge of the relevant physics.
> discussed
You mean dismissed, Puffman.
Silly sock puppet.
Regardless of who’s right, overall, on the moon issue…these four issues remain settled and correct:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
Anybody still arguing against them at this stage is just trolling.
No, all are not in agreement on the 4 points, DREMT. You will have to wait as noted. Do not expect agreement as many commenters have pointed out faults in them.
You cannot fault reality. Those who disagree with any of the four points are simply trolling, at this point. You are one of the worst offenders on this blog, Ball4.
Keep waiting as you note, DREMT.
Sure.
eben…the link you posted to ‘Climate: The Movie’ was received at my end as the Dutch version. Here is the English version….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM&ab_channel=CLINTEL
Interesting thus far. One scientist estimated it was up to 13C warmer at times in the past. Claims there is nothing unprecedented in current warming.
This movie is good , exceded my expectations,
The movie clearly identifies the hoax, or “scam” as Happer prefers. I would have liked more examples of the violations of the laws of physics, but the movie was produced for the general public.
I appreciated Dr. Spencer’s relating the hoax to agenda. And especially enjoyed Dr. Lindzen using the word “cult”. One interesting Lindzen quote, referring to the cultists: “…I mean, you know, you’ve become a ‘climate scientist’ now, even though you know nothing about the physics of the climate.”
Talk about hitting the target….
yes….the movie is very good. I watched the rest of it last night and it does exceed expectations. Similar vids in the past have had too much dogma in them but this one states the facts in a way an open-minded person can easily understand.
13 + about 15 is about 28 C.
That is a pretty warm ocean, it’s at least, about 15 + 3.5 = 18.5 C average temperature, ocean.
A very wet world.
And probably a world with a lot less land area.
No deserts and a lot less grassland. And a lot of trees.
But considering large part of world land area is currently frozen wastelands and deserts, a net gain in more enjoyable land areas.
It thrilled the gullible masses.
Did you notice anything that Roy Spencer say which you thought was misleading?
Or are you are too gullible to notice anything, specifically?
Perhaps you can cite an expert’s opinion of what Roy says, that you trust?
I agree with Nate on this one. The movie is just a mere attempt at refutation that recycles the same surface-level, unoriginal remarks from the same folks. If this were my first exposure to climate skepticism, I would just do further research to find counterarguments and conclude that the content was propagandistic. It doesn’t stimulate critical thinking or meaningful engagement among viewers, which would leave them without genuine contemplation of why they may have been misled. I had similar thoughts after watching An Inconvenient Truth during 6th-grade earth science class.
Walter, you have admitted you don’t understand the science. You have claimed you are here to learn. But, the reality is you’re here to opine.
The movie did not include the physics as to why the GHE nonsense is bogus, because the general public does not understand physics. The movie dealt with showing the recent data does not indicate any reason for alarm based on the widely accepted historical data. The movie further indicated the cult’s resorting to censorship and intimidation.
If you’re sincerely here to learn, you need to first learn that opinions ain’t science. Then you need to learn to admit you’re wrong when your opinions don’t match reality.
Clint,
From a neutral perspective with no prior education, what conclusions would you take away from watching the movie?
The movie dealt with showing the recent data does not indicate any reason for alarm based on the widely accepted historical data.
Conclusion: There is no reason for massive government intervention.
The movie further indicated the cults resorting to censorship and intimidation.
Conclusion: The nonsense is all cult agenda, not science.
Ok, you’re correct. I am wrong.
Having finally watched the whole video, I find it just another mass of denialist propaganda. The data presented is carefully cherry picked to suggest that there’s no problem with AGW, even though wider data analysis does display ongoing changes. A few examples:
They show a graph of CO2 concentration going back more than 500 million years and claim that today’s level is nearly low enough to kill us all. Trouble is, humans and the living Earth within which we evolved has been at that level of CO2 within the past few million years. There is evidence of repeated periods of glaciation since ~3 million BP with occasional interglacial periods, thought to be the result of changes in ocean circulation resulting from the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, with the past few thousand years has been one of those exceptional warm periods. The Earth is not in any way like it was 500, 50 or even 5 million years ago.
They describe some temperature record since Roman times, especially the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age without presenting any evidence for the causes involved, such as the effects of the prevalence or lack of very large volcanic eruptions. Also, these periods may have been more focused on local regions where more anecdotal data is available, such as around the North Atlantic or the NH in general.
They claim that the Earth was warmer around 1930-1940, but don’t discuss probably causes. The Dust Bowl period in the US Midwest was the direct result of very bad agricultural practices in the period after WW I. They discuss the Urban Heat Island Effect while ignoring that there’s no UHI over the Arctic, the oceans or in the upper atmosphere where the UAH data shows a warming trend.
They claim that the temperatures around the Antarctic have not warmed, while ignoring the effects of ozone depletion resulting in the Ozone hole. Again, they don’t mention that the largest observed warming is around the Arctic.
Then too, they use a large fraction of the video to promote claims that there is a bias in the awarding of research grants, depending on whether the researcher supports AGW or not.
In conclusion, I think the video is a great example of political disinformation. The average, non-scientific viewer would swallow it hook-line-and-sinker, adding to the growing perception by the public that AGW is not a problem, indeed, a hoax manufactured to promote a one world semi-authoritarian (aka, Communist) government. Sad to say, there’s no way for those of us who worry about the environment to counter such propaganda, once it’s “out in the wild” of the Internet.
Arkady Ivanovich wrote:
“Deniers trying to hold on to the narrative:”
If you genuinely held that belief, why even bother coming here? Why not simply purchase a battery car and lead a peaceful life, rather than engaging in pointless discussions that contradict your stated beliefs?
You are here: https://ibb.co/dt0pYHF
Asking you a question is censorship?
Haven’t you said you were taking a break, Monkey Man?
Try this then: https://ibb.co/Wv45r6S
I prefer:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/
I might be biased.
He doesn’t have a central point to directly refute, Willard.
Either way. The important thing is to accurately describe walterrh03’s commitment to quasi-intellectual douchebaggery.
> He doesnt have
Step 1 – Denial.
Notice how Monkey Many almost realizes why he’s Just Asking Questions…
Thanks for admitting you have no central point. I do admire Willards loyalty towards you and to Team Science by trying to distract me with his interpretative dances.
It’s been a pleasure! https://ibb.co/DLHcfxV
> Thanks for admitting you have no central point.
The kind of abuse that usual models of argumentation can’t account for.
The FAIL model does, however.
I didn’t initially understand that his post was connected to the other.
Monkey Man uses a different tactic below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651422
Which leads us to Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
I have already admitted to erroneous interpretation. Your attempt to capitalize on it does not give you an advantage.
I’m just showing reasons why I prefer my model, Monkey Man.
Fail again. Fail better.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Im just showing reasons why I prefer my model, Monkey Man.
Fail again. Fail better.”
It seems you have your gibberish generator up and running.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think what I said should, at least, be considered; even you would probably agree, Willard. After all, what benefit does one with your perspective gain from coming here?
I think you should admit that your plausible deniability is wearing thin, Monkey Man.
I already admitted my mistake; your replies are just giving me more reason to consider what I said.
“I think you should admit that your plausible deniability is wearing thin, Monkey Man.”
More irrelevant gobberish?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh dear, a typo crept in.
Fixed herewith –
“I think you should admit that your plausible deniability is wearing thin, Monkey Man.”
More irrelevant gibberish?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
More than a typo crept in –
You did.
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
I didnt read the YT bio.
walter….”Arkady Ivanovich wrote:
Deniers trying to hold on to the narrative:
If you genuinely held that belief, why even bother coming here? Why not simply purchase a battery car and lead a peaceful life, rather than engaging in pointless discussions that contradict your stated beliefs?”
***
Well stated, Walter. The one advantage of having alarmists like Ark, wee willy, Binny, etc., commenting here is to reveal the absolute stoopidity of climate alarmists.
In the movie posted by Eben…Climate: The Movie… good scientists point out not only the stoopidity of alarmists but there evil intent. They are malicious people who will stop at nothing to injure and ruin the lives of those who disagree with their narrative.
wee willy tried to claim that Roy is aligned with them but in the movie he states his position clearly, in alignment with other good scientists. Roy is not a luke-warmer, he’s a true skeptic.
One of the good scientists, Will Happer, who I have criticized at times for his seeming agreement with alarmist theory was clear on his position. He claimed climate change is a scam. He said he’d settle for hoax but that it is really a scam.
Mr. Asshat interprets questions as statements.
Why is that?
Not that this matter much for the squirrels he throws around after that.
wee willy’s reply confirms my claim that climate alarmists are stoopid.
Mr. Asshat is obviously not a falsificationnist.
Since he keeps misrepresenting Roy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Mr. Asshat denies the greenhouse effect, and thus belongs to Sky Dragon cranks.
Wily Wee Willy,
Presumably you are quoting Dr Spencer, whom you call “Roy”, in an attempt to be gratuitously offensive.
I point out that Dr Spencer has not described the “greenhouse effect” as far as I am aware.
Maybe you could quote Dr Spencer’s description of the GHE. Have you managed to get Dr Spencer to adopt your description – “not cooling, slower cooling” – or maybe you think his unwritten description was so abysmal he needed your help.
Do you agree with Dr Spencer that without a mythical “greenhouse effect”, the atmosphere would be isothermal? If the base of the atmosphere was say 50 C at Furnace Creek, and at the nominal top of the atmosphere at around -269 C, why would it not be hotter at the bottom than the top? What temperature do you think the atmosphere would assume in the absence of supposed “greenhouse gases”? You really have no idea, do you?
You seem to be a brainless fanatical GHE cultist, with little to no understanding of physics.
If, as you claim, the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, who could possibly deny that object like the Earth have cooled in the past four and a half billion year? Do you deny that this has occurred? Do you deny that the measured rate of present cooling (measured in millionths of a Kelvin per annum) is very slow indeed?
If anybody seems to have their head so far up their ass that they appear to be wearing their ass like a hat, that would be you!
You are a strange dreamer. Luckily, you are both incompetent and impotent.
Mike Flynn,
Presumably you are braying something, but it’s hard to know what. I’d have to read your comment. And even then it’d be hard.
Have you found Roy’s description of the greenhouse effect yet?
Wily Wee Willy,
Presumably you are quoting Dr Spencer, whom you call “Roy”, in an attempt to be gratuitously offensive.
I point out that Dr Spencer has not described the “greenhouse effect” as far as I am aware.
Maybe you could quote Dr Spencers description of the GHE. Have you managed to get Dr Spencer to adopt your description “not cooling, slower cooling” or maybe you think his unwritten description was so abysmal he needed your help.
Do you agree with Dr Spencer that without a mythical “greenhouse effect”, the atmosphere would be isothermal? If the base of the atmosphere was say 50 C at Furnace Creek, and at the nominal top of the atmosphere at around -269 C, why would it not be hotter at the bottom than the top? What temperature do you think the atmosphere would assume in the absence of supposed “greenhouse gases”? You really have no idea, do you?
You seem to be a brainless fanatical GHE cultist, with little to no understanding of physics.
If, as you claim, the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, who could possibly deny that object like the Earth have cooled in the past four and a half billion year? Do you deny that this has occurred? Do you deny that the measured rate of present cooling (measured in millionths of a Kelvin per annum) is very slow indeed?
If anybody seems to have their head so far up their ass that they appear to be wearing their ass like a hat, that would be you!
You are a strange dreamer. Luckily, you are both incompetent and impotent.
Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
Mik.e Flynn says:
September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Roy,
This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?”
You seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Mike Flynn, and keep posting the same comment. Is it unrequited love that afflicts you?
Oh well, your obsession is your affair, I guess.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
My thinking is that they don’t truly believe that the science is settled, hence why they are here. If I shared their perspective, I wouldn’t waste my time and come here or on any blog on the internet. I would just live my life and accept that there’s nothing I can do about the situation. The only good reason one would comment here is to try to learn. Being wrong is not a bad thing, so long as you learn from it.
Related…
Predictions by climate science that have already been observed.
In this video, https://youtu.be/ds9f2q8ajFI ;
Climate science predictions: Broecker ’75, Hansen ’81, Exxon ’82, Hansen ’88, IPCC ’90, IPCC ’95, IPCC ’01, IPCC ’07.
vs
“Skeptics'” predictions: Lindzen ’89, Michaels ’99, Easterbrook ’08, Akasofu ’09.
Total wipeout for “skeptics.”
“predicted in the 70s and 80s”
and
“IPCC ’90, IPCC ’95, IPCC ’01, IPCC ’07”
Sure looks like they are in line.
P.S. “Michaels ’99, Easterbrook ’08, Akasofu ’09”
are also.
A,
“Predictions by climate science . . . ”
You mean “guesses” by self proclaimed “climate scientists”, of course.
The IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future states of the atmosphere.
Maybe you consider that temperature has nothing to do with the atmosphere. I was under the impression that you are referring to air temperature, not surface temperature, and air is part of the atmosphere.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Your argument fall apart hen you try to prove the warming has been caused by anthropogenic gases. No one is denying warming has not occurred, the debate is over whether it is caused by natural forces or anthropogenic forces.
Thus far, alarmists have been unable to prove that anthropogenic sources have anything to do with warming.
> Your argument fall apart hen you try to prove the warming has been caused by anthropogenic gases.
No it doesn’t.
Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
tim…”No, conventional current is about the mathematical definition of current. I = dQ/dt. This definition doesnt care what the charge carriers are.
If one plate of a capacitor starts out positive and the other starts out negative, and then later both are neutral, the electrical current was from positive to negative. Period”.
***
I don’t know why you feel compelled to lead off with “No”. Is that just a habit like when I lead off with “bs.”?
The original definition of current predates the conventional current flow theory by at least a century. In those days, the electron had yet to be discovered so current was defined based on the attractive force between two conductors carry a current. The force in dynes was related to the current in the conductors.
The force comes from Coulomb’s Law, F = k.q1.q2/r^2. This is an electrostatic force where q1 and q2 are point charges of the same or opposite sign. r is the distance between them. Of course, it can be written as F = k.I1.I2/r^2 for known currents.
Note the parallel to gravitational force where F = G.m1.m2/r^2.
That was the original basis of current measurement based on the force created by current through two parallel conductors. If the currents are in the same direction, the conductors attract and if in opposite directions the wires repel.
Later, the modern definition was introduced based on the number of charges per second. However, no one has ever measured that exactly, since individual charges cannot be summed, therefore it is a calculation based on theory. At least the original definition based on force can be accurately verified.
Therefore, conventional current flow has nothing to do the definition of current. The current definition was well established a century before the notion of conventional current flow came to light. As I said before, conventional current theory came from a misunderstanding of the role of the electron in current flow. The fact that it has persisted is a testament to institutional stoopidity.
With regard to a capacitor’s plates you have to ask why one plate would be more negative than the other.
One plate becomes more negative simply because electrons were forced into that plate due to current flow.
binny…”Any logician will tell you that in this case, the lunar motion cannot be described by the ball-on-a-string; hence, lunar motion has nothing in common with orbiting without spin”.
***
Are all you spinners this obtuse? It has been explained over and over that the ball on a string model is not intended to replicate lunar motion. It is strictly an example of a body constrained to orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the body it is orbiting.
Ergo, if the BoS is constrained to orbit without local spin then another body doing the same cannot be rotating on a local axis either.
However, we do not rely only on that model, we have presented several observations, including those of Newton, to corroborate our views. However, the BoS give a good visual representation of the problem.
There are other similarities. The string gives a decent model for gravitational force. The ball’s momentum, which is always linear, gives a good model for the Moon’s lunar momentum. If the ball loses momentum, it loses orbit and collapses vertically. The Moon would do much the same if it lost momentum.
Finally, the ball cannot rotate locally because the string stops it rotating. Therefore the ball keeps the same face pointed along the string. Pretty well the same with the Moon. Gravity does not prevent it rotating as in the flawed tidal locking theory but the Moon also keeps the same face pointed at Earth because it cannot rotate on its axis.
Mr. Asshat insists – Moon Dragon cranks must keep repeating the same crap over and over again.
Is there not an occasional sparks in that density between your ears that makes you the least bit curious about real physics that is not carefully packaged by ijits in their appeal to authority.
The science community is full of followers with hardly any leaders. You don’t have to be always right to be a leader, you just need to try to go beyond political-correctness and an appeal to authority.
You have referenced Roy several times. He is a leader and he leads by example. None of your alarmist brethern have that capability, they are all followers. Not only are they followers they tend to be spiteful SOBs who attack and run down leaders like Roy.
Robertson
” You have referenced Roy several times. He is a leader and he leads by example. None of your alarmist brethern have that capability, they are all followers. ”
*
First, Ignorant-in-Chief, you are an ardent follower of Clausius (but only the one from 1854), Bohr, R.W. Wood, Tesla, E.M. Smith (chiefio), anti-Einstein blogs, anti-corona blogs, pro-Russia blogs, etc. etc.
Secondly, e.g. Ball4, Eben, Ken, Norman, RLH, Tim Folkerts, Walter R. Hogle, Willard, myself – and on this blog alone, for sure many who do not actively participate: all accept the rotation of the Moon about its polar axis, because it has been proven hundreds of times over centuries, using completely different observation and calculation methods.
Thirdly, although you are an ardent follower of Roy Spencer’s (and John Christy’s) way of working, you are clearly too cowardly to ask them whether they share your ridiculous opinion re. Moon rotation: you are simply too afraid of having to read from these two scientists exactly what you stubbornly deny all the time on the base of incredibly trivial, nonsensical ‘arguments’.
…all accept the inertial rotation of…
And inevitably, the arrogant and selfish hyperscientist Ball4 felt the need to leave his little, sluggish ‘inertial’ dog poop behind, which confuses 90% of readers and therefore contributes negatively to the discussion.
More like 10%, just need to specify inertial vs accelerated frame for any motion discussion to make sense.
…and when I tell Ball4 that I’m always referring to an Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) reference frame when discussing the moon, he switches to his "location of observer" crap. Ball4 is not here to help any discussion progress. He wants to suggest that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating on its own axis wrt an accelerated frame, yet I am constantly…constantly correcting him that I am referring to an ECI reference frame when I’m saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis. At this point he just says something like "yes, wrt an ECI reference frame the moon does not rotate on its own axis as observed from the Earth"!
So there are two layers to his obfuscation; his obsession with reference frames, which once bypassed, he switches to the second layer, his "as observed from" nonsense. Which, by the way, you can’t find referenced anywhere. It’s just something he’s made up.
He’s here to attempt to irritate. That’s it.
“…Ball4, Eben, Ken, Norman, RLH, Tim Folkerts, Walter R. Hogle, Willard, myself [Bindi] … all accept the rotation of the Moon…”
Yes, so many fall for the cult nonsense. So many have no understanding of the relevant physics.
I bet that wayward bunch, together or alone, can not come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
At least they’ve got each other….
Orbiting without spin viable model is the Moon observed from Earth as Tesla long ago pointed out. And a BoS as observed by the spinner.
See what I mean?
“because it has been proven hundreds of times over centuries …”
“Proven is not the right word for science. It is more of an Occam’s Razor situation. It is completely possible to come up with some definition of “orbiting with out rotating” that is like our moon. For circular orbits this can actually work pretty well.
The big problem is elliptical orbits. A “ball on a stretchy string” doesn’t work, since that would keep one face directly toward the earth. A “car on a track” with one side always facing along the direction of travel doesn’t work either, since that would cause the wrong libration. Either of these models would require some ad hoc extra motion to properly align the moon correctly for librations. And this in turn would require ad hoc extra torques.
The “Occam’s Razor” simpler solution is that “orbit” simply means the motion of the center of mass along a path — with no mention of the object’s orientation. And that “rotation” of the object is measured relative to the ‘fixed stars’ (not relative to the direction to the earth or the direction forward along the path).
This interpretation is simpler, agrees with conservation of angular momentum, and correctly predicts libration without any ad hoc extra rules. And agrees with the rest of physics. And agrees with the simplest definition of “rotation” (ie Ball4’s “inertial rotation”.)
The bigger problem is that Tim doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the motion "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". He’s so inculcated through his extensive physics training that he has lost the simple ability to understand that something can be twirled around an external axis, like a ball on a string, and that object is thus objectively not rotating about an internal axis.
It’s fine, in an abstract kind of way only, to think of the ball on a string as translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis…as long as you remember that this in no way represents the physical reality of what’s actually occurring with the ball on a string. As Little Willy once said:
"What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not".
The ball on a string has one motion only. That’s the mechanical, physical, objective reality for that object’s movement.
grammie complains that:
Since grammie doesn’t understand dynamics, he fails to see that the location of the origin used to define an inertial reference frame doesn’t matter. That’s because the angular momentum is the same with any choice of origin, being it the Moon, the Earth, the Sun or distant stars. It’s blindingly obvious that the Moon rotates wrt the Sun and that simple fact proves that the Moon rotates.
Of course, the No-Spin Cult will continue to claim otherwise, as they refuse to accept reality. Grammie’s fall back is his repeated claim that:
One might as well replace the string with a metal bar welded to the ball, which would produce the same result. BUT That has nothing to do with the rotation of the Moon.
Unwelcome Intruder Swanson offers:
"One might as well replace the string with a metal bar welded to the ball, which would produce the same result. BUT That has nothing to do with the rotation of the Moon."
It’s great to see he acknowledges that the Objective Physical Reality for the ball on a string is that it has only one motion. Excellent. He can argue with Tim, then, when Tim responds. That’s all good.
Unwelcome Intruder Swanson then opines:
"the location of the origin used to define an inertial reference frame doesn’t matter…"
Let’s re-annihilate this argument. Using the ball on a string, which he has already acknowledged has only one motion, if you locate the origin of your inertial reference frame at the hand that is swinging the ball around on the string, you have the necessary perspective to "see" that the ball is rotating about the external axis (the hand), rather than its own internal axis.
If you instead locate the origin of your inertial reference frame at the centre of the ball itself, you could erroneously convince yourself that the ball is rotating on its own internal axis! Fatal mistake.
So, location of origin matters. Another argument won.
“The bigger problem is that Tim doesnt even acknowledge the existence of the motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.”
The bigger problem yet is that you can’t define “rotation about an axis.” If I propose an axis, how would you determine if some rigid body is rotating about that axis?
I (and every other scientist and engineer) would say there is rotation about an axis if every point in the object:
a) maintains a constant distance from the axis
b) changes orientation relative to ‘the fixed stars’.
Feel free to propose your own definition of “rotation about an axis”.
You can argue it out with Unwelcome Intruder Swanson, Tim. Unwelcome Intruder Swanson, like many "Spinners", accepts that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and is motion like the ball on a string. You’ve got a long way to go to catch up [I won’t be playing your "definition" game, no matter how many times you ask, so have fun talking to yourself about that].
Graham D. Warner has yet to define what “rotation about an axis” means for Moon Dragon cranks.
No need to define already well-understood terms, Little Willy. Besides, the ball on a string does meet Tim’s definition of "rotation about an axis" by rotating about an axis that is external to the ball. Tim just can’t understand that there is such a thing as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". That’s his limitation.
You’re already better than that, Little Willy, since you’re one of those that have shown you understand and accept that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and is motion like the ball on a string. So, strictly-speaking, you too should be arguing against Tim. Off you go.
Again, yes, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is motion like the ball on a string as observed by the BoS spinner.
"Again, yes, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion…"
Even Ball4 disagrees with Tim on this one. Another person to argue against him, should Tim respond further.
Graham D. Warner might discovered absolute rotation yesterday, he knew all along what “around a fixed axis” entailed.
Alternatively, he may never have realized why I kept asking Puffman to do the Pole Dance experiment!
I assume that’s meant to be English, but…
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
I have no idea what point you were trying to make, and your comment was poorly written. That’s not gaslighting, it’s a fact. It’s OK though, nobody else will understand what you were going on about either, so I’ll just ignore it.
Cult Leader Grammie can’t admit the fact that the Moon rotates once an orbit, so he jumps back into his BoS dance routine. The Moon’s motion is not a “rotation-about-an-external-axis” as one might call the motion of his BoS, one end of which is attached to some fixed point with a bearing. Grammie insists on using that fixed point as the origin of his coordinate system.
Grammie still doesn’t understand angular momentum, which is a vector quantity. For the Moon or other symmetrical celestial body, that vector points in the same direction regardless of the choice of inertial reference frame in space. The best choice is a reference frame placed at the center of mass of the body.
“The best choice is a reference frame placed at the center of mass of the body”
Ah, but then you could erroneously convince yourself that the ball is rotating about its own internal axis. That would be a mistake, as you have agreed, Unwelcome Intruder Swanson.
grammie continues to flaunt his red herring Ball-ona-String Scenario (BOSS). His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM. He thus continues to ignore both dynamics and the fact that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
“His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM”
It’s so great that you agree with me on my points 1) and 2), Swanson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
You have no idea how hard it is convincing some people that they’re correct. Perhaps you can argue it out with those people, in future.
Thanks.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Not at all. He definitely agrees on 1), as his comments here show. Agreement on 2) might be extrapolating a little, but then I’m also aware of other comments he’s made in the past that would suggest agreement on 2). I’m sure he’ll correct me if he doesn’t agree on 2), for whatever reason. Agreement on 1) is a start, in any case.
As I’ve noted repeatedly regarding “issue #1”, Grammie’s BOSS is not representative of the Moon’s rotation, it’s a red herring to disrupt discussion. His “issue #2” is a further distortion which assumes a circular orbit, which does not apply to the Moon. In addition, “issue #2” applies only to the case of General Plane Motion, which can not apply to the Moon, given that the Moon’s axis it tilted slightly wrt it’s orbit plane.
Of course, there’s no point in “correcting” grammie’s ignorance, since it’s firmly affixed in his brain. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Yes, UI Swanson, you agree with 1) and 2), but can’t see any connection to the moon issue. That’s OK, the connection can be discussed later, once all "Spinners" have agreed with the 1) – 4). You’re wrong about 2) being "General Plane Motion" – it’s actually just "rotation" (about an external axis, not an internal axis) – but your argument is a good one against your own team. You’ve shot yourself in the foot there, without realising it. All fun and games…
“the ball on a string does meet Tims definition of “rotation about an axis” by rotating about an axis that is external to the ball ”
AND … it meets the definition about its own COM.
** Each point on the ball stays a fixed distance from a line through the COM (the ball is rigid)
** Each point on the ball changes orientation relative to that line (eg a point that starts north of the ball’s COM will later be east and south and west of the line).
It meets the definition for both axes simultaneously.
OTOH, the moon in an elliptical orbit does NOT meet the definition for rotation about the barycenter, but it DOES meet the definition for rotation about its own COM.
Tim, you have to shift the origin of your reference frame from the swinger of the ball on the string to the CoM of the ball itself to convince yourself (wrongly) that the ball is rotating on its own internal axis.
Sorry, but “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, Tim. You have seen that Swanson, Little Willy and even Ball4 agree. Have fun arguing against them. It’s not even remotely fair or reasonable that everyone argues against me when you don’t even agree amongst yourselves.
“It meets the definition for both axes simultaneously“…
…the ball on a string is not rotating about both axes simultaneously. To do so, it would somehow have to wrap itself up in the string.
P.S: elliptical orbits are outside the scope of my points 1) – 4). In other words, I won’t be discussing them until all “Spinners” agree that points 1) – 4) are correct.
“To do so, it would somehow have to wrap itself up in the string.”
Not when observed inertially from outside the orbit where the string is observed to force the ball to rotate on its own axis once per orbit or the ball would wrap itself up in the string hence the ball rotates inertially on its own r and orbital R axes.
Tim has previously said that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" does not exist as a motion.
Ball4 said: "Again, yes, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion…"
I await their discussion with much interest.
One more time for this pointless discussion.
All motion is measured relative to a reference frame. In different reference frames, you get different answers. For example, I might moving at 0 m/s relative to my car, but 60 km/hr relative to the ground and 30 km/s relative to the sun. All of these are correct and each is useful in a different context.
Similarly, rotation must be measured relative to a reference frame. For the BoS, we could measure relative to the string, or relative to the ground, or relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
For the BoS:
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative to the string connecting the ball to your hand, then the ball is NOT rotating about its CoM relative to the string frame.
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative to the ground, then the ball IS rotating about its CoM relative to the ground frame.
For the MOTL:
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative a line from the earth to the moon, then the moon is NOT rotating about its CoM in that frame.
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative a line across the screen, to the moon, then the moon IS rotating about its CoM in that frame.
Conversely the MOTR:
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative a line from the earth to the moon, then the moon IS rotating about its CoM in that frame.
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative a line across the screen, to the moon, then the moon is NOT rotating about its CoM in that frame.
Finally, for the real moon in an elliptical orbit:
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative a line from the earth to the moon, then the moon is WOBBING back and forth about its CoM.
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative to ‘the fixed stars’, then the moon IS rotating about its CoM at a constant rate in that frame.
It comes down to which frame you CHOOSE to work in. For the moon, choose the frame that does not introduce arbitrary wobbles; the frame that conserves angular momentum; the frame that simplifies all of classical mechanics; the frame that all sane physicists choose.
"For the BoS:
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative to the string connecting the ball to your hand, then the ball is NOT rotating about its CoM relative to the string frame.
* if we CHOOSE to measure relative to the ground, then the ball IS rotating about its CoM relative to the ground frame."
Relative to the "ground frame", with the origin of the reference frame going through the swinger of the ball on a string, the ball on a string is "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Relative to the "ground frame", with the origin of the reference frame going through the ball itself, the ball appears to be rotating about its own internal axis.
Choice of reference frames cannot change the Objective Physical Reality (OPR) that an object that is mechanically unable to rotate on its own internal axis when moving (like the ball on a string) is thus not rotating on its own internal axis when moving!
And just because DREMT is so eager and anxious …
It is pretty clear to me that Ball4 is trying to state that rotation about an external axis with no ADDITION rotation about an internal axis RELATIVE TO THE ROTATING FRAME DEFINED BY THE STRING is possible.
This is a useful choice in some circumstances. I have no problem with this approach as long as it is clear what frame is being used.
You are in direct disagreement with Ball4, Swanson and Little Willy, Tim.
Objective Physical Reality???
Suppose I have two devices. One is an old-time record player with a toy horse mounted on top of a small stick moving in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. The other has a modern x-y plotter moving a small electric motor with a toy horse mounted on top of the shaft.
The plotter and motor are programmed to move the horse in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM.
Both toy horse execute EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION. Suppose I hide the mechanism so you can’t see it. Are you seriously going to advocate based on “Objective Physical Reality” that one of the two horses is rotating on its own axis, but the other is not?
Yes, and your incredulity is not an argument against it. The mechanics of the situation matter. The two motions might appear identical but the horse on the record player physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis. So, it isn’t. The horse on the XY plotter is being spun by a motor. Objectively, it is rotating on its own internal axis.
“he mechanics of the situation matter. The two motions might appear identical but the horse on the record”
Ill-logic.
The motion is the motion. And we use kinematics to describe it. The mechanism could be permanently hidden and obviously could not be part of the description of it.
For example buried beneath the face of a clock are dozens of gears with various motions, yet we can accurately describe the motions of the two hands as pure rotations without knowing anything about the buried mechanism.
So, the OPR for the toy horse on the turntable is that it is rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That’s what a turntable does. It turns things.
Whereas, the OPR for the toy horse on the XY plotter is that it is translating in a circle, whilst rotating about an internal axis. That’s what an XY plotter does. It translates things.
It’s not about describing the motion, though, it’s about what is actually, physically, occurring. Maybe this is something engineers would grok better than physicists…
…and your argument about "if you were unable to see the mechanism" is silly. If you’re unable to see the mechanism, it doesn’t somehow mean that the mechanism isn’t there, doing its thing. This is why people take things apart to look at how they work. That sort of reality matters to some people.
That’s what a turntable does. It turns things except to the turntable frame center observer who only sees one side of the horse only orbiting not spinning on its own axis.
Yet again, DREMT doesn’t mention location of his “it turns things” observation.
Ball4 never adds anything of any value to the discussion.
Graham D. Warner has no counter to Tim’s points.
“The two motions might appear identical ” … because they are. Any measurement of the two gives identical results. The two horses have the same angular momentum and same angular velocity and same forces acting on them and same torques acting on them.
We have gone from Schrodinger’s Cat to DREMPT’s horse. The horse is in an indeterminant state. It may or may not be rotating.
Or from the other end … what is the “OPR” of our orbiting moon? Is it riding on a giant record player? Is it attached to a giant x-y plotter? Other?
There is no “OPR” like a string or turntable or plotter. The best, simplest “OPR” for the moon is the CoM tracing a path through space due to gravity (which has no constraints on orientation of the body) and an independent rotation on its own axis.
The “OPR” is that the moon is rotating on its own axis and NOT rotating around the barycenter!
“So, the OPR for the toy horse on the turntable is that it is rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Thats what a turntable does. It turns things.”
Never heard of a Lazy Susan? It used to pass something from one place to another. IOW it translates it.
Look regardless of the method the motion is the same.
The record player is moving the horse along a path thru space, just as the xy plotter is.
“Its not about describing the motion, though, its about what is actually, physically, occurring. Maybe this is something engineers would grok better than physicists”
Well robotic competitions are all about creating a robotic mechanism that can produce a specific motion. And none are surprised that there are multiple methods to produce the same motion.
The thing is, the specific motion first has to be described, in a language that everyone can reproduce. That is kinematics.
“We have gone from Schrodinger’s Cat to DREMPT’s horse. The horse is in an indeterminant state. It may or may not be rotating.”
It’s really quite the opposite, Tim. The two horses have very specific and definite states dependent on the mechanism involved in their motion. The horse on the XY plotter is rotating on its own internal axis, because there is a motor physically spinning it. The horse on the turntable is not rotating on its own internal axis because it physically cannot. You’re so inculcated you can’t even see the difference! Quite remarkable.
Some people are just not good at logic..
Nothing can be done about it.
The whole point of physics and specifically kinematics, is to boil motion down to its essential essence, that all such motions have in common.
Thus there is no need to know where every rivet, or every bearing, or gear is, because none of that is essential to know what the motion is.
To put all that back in is missing the point.
“…what is the “OPR” of our orbiting moon?”
Well, isn’t that the entire point of this discussion, Tim? To determine the Objective Physical Reality of the moon’s rotation about an internal axis, or lack thereof? Personally, I realise that the issue completely transcends the moon, and is in fact simply about whether “orbit without spin” is really like the MOTL or the MOTR, which impacts all orbiting objects, but I digress. The purpose of this discussion is to actually reach a decision. Not just say, “well, I think it’s spinning wrt this reference frame, but not wrt this one”. What sort of “resolution” is that!?
The ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis. That is point 1) of the four points. The very first step! Yet some of them can’t even get that far. Sheesh.
Once all the “Spinners” agree on the four points, we can finally move on with the discussion and maybe actually resolve the issue. That may well be your time to shine, Tim. We can’t get there unless you’re going to open that mind of yours a little bit, first.
The ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis as objectively observed by the spinner of the ball.
Once again, as always, DREMT intentionally leaves out location of his observation.
Ball4 obviously cannot follow the discussion, which is why he is unable to contribute anything worthwhile.
“Once all the Spinners agree on the four points, we can move on”
Sorry, debate is not about bullying. It is about convincing through logical, factual arguments.
You cannot seriously expect people to ‘agree’ with things they don’t agree with, just because you demand it?
…obviously cannot follow the discussion, which is why he is unable to contribute anything worthwhile.
“elliptical orbits are outside the scope of my points”
The “OPR” is that ALL orbits are elliptical. So logically, all orbits are outside the scope of your points.
Tim is frustrated that I won’t discuss elliptical orbits with him. Well, I’m frustrated that the “Spinners” disagree amongst themselves on the 1) – 4), but never argue with each other. See how that works? Tim, argue with Swanson about point 1).
Once again Graham D. Warner has no counter to Tim’s point.
Little Willy appears out of nowhere to lie about the discussion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653301
"His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around it’s CoM"
When I say it, I get no end of grief. When Swanson says it, nobody bats an eyelid. Tim, argue with Swanson.
> [Graham D. Warner]’s BOSS is not representative of the Moon’s rotation, it’s a red herring to disrupt discussion
Amen!
Wrong, the ball on a string is the “Non-Spinner’s” model of “orbit without spin”. The “Spinners” don’t have one. Little Willy tried to put one forward, recently, and Clint R quickly annihilated it.
See what I mean?
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Similar to Ball4, Little Willy never has anything of any value to contribute.
Another great contribution by Graham D. Warner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655482
Hard to gaslight harder.
They just point blank refuse to argue amongst themselves when they disagree.
Sure, I will argue with:
“His BOSS ball is not able to freely rotate, as is the Moon, since it is connected directly to a pivot point (i.e., his hand), and can not rotate around its CoM”
It is correct (as stated) that the “BOSS is not able to FREELY rotate.” The second half can be corrected by explicitly reintroducing “freely”. It [BoS] can not rotate FREELY around its CoM.
However … the non-freely rotating ball is still rotating about its CoM. The rotation rate around the CoM is simply compelled to rotate at the same rate as the string is rotating around the hand.
So whoever wrote this — if they agree with my slight correction/clarification, then all is good. If they mean the BoS is truly not rotating at all around it’s CoM relative to the ‘fixed stars’, then I say they are wrong.
Finally! Though Tim seems reluctant to take Swanson at his word, and wants to try to re-write his comment for him. We’ll see if Swanson can clarify, like Norman and Bindidon have done in the past, that they are saying the ball is objectively not rotating about its own internal axis, because it cannot.
DREMT clearly needs to distract from his losses on the larger issues: the Moon rotates on its own axis, it has always been about reference frames, and the Green Plate radiatively insulates the Blue Plate.
How? By revising history. pretending ‘it has never really been about the moon’.
And by trying his hardest to manufacture faux controversies among his opponents, that all amount to pedantic semantics.
Surely his opponents are wrong about something! Anything at all would soothe his pain.
Nobody should fall for it.
A fairly short comment from Nate, so probably just a personal attack. Meanwhile, we await a response from Swanson.
Not really, just a warning: con man at work.
A really short comment from Nate, so almost certainly just a personal attack. Meanwhile, we await a response from Swanson.
“Meanwhile, we await a response from Swanson.”
Nah.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653445
Still nothing from Swanson. I’d take a lack of a response as confirmation that he agrees with me, as he would definitely delight in responding if he disagreed.
“confirmation that he agrees with me”
Gee, all the times that DREMT doesnt respond to me, must be confirmation that he agrees with me!
Still nothing from Swanson. Make of that what you will. I guess if he hasn’t seen the recent messages, and has simply moved on, we won’t know what he thinks for sure. Going by what he actually wrote, it was in agreement with my point 1). He just added that he thought it was a red herring.
“Mr. Asshat insists Moon Dragon cranks must keep repeating the same crap over and over again.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mr. Asshat has no real argument for his overall crankiness, thus lushes out by picking up random quotes and piping up the same rants he did for more than a decade here.
He denies the greenhouse effect. That makes him a Sky Dragon crank.
He denies that the Moon spins. That makes him a Moon Dragon crank.
He denies the freaking DEFINITION of an electric current.
* * *
What else does he deny? Here’s a short list of silly claims he made:
– I dont think the surface can emit a continuous IR spectrum.
– “Climate” suggests a global climate and we know there is no such thing.
– A photon is a poorly defined quantum of electromagnetic energy.
– A Russian proved that the Pythagorean theorem only applies to plane surfaces.
– After all this stuff about atomic clocks, has the length of the second changed?
– All feedbacks in nature are negative.
– As far as I am concerned, if the derivative does not exist, there is no continuity.
– clocks do NOT measure time, they generate time.
– Conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation.
– At no time did Clausius ever refer to heat as a measure of anything
– I seriously doubt that any atom has the time to form a positive charge.
– It strikes me as being wrong that CO2 only emits at 15um.
– Planck fudged the solution and he readily admits that.
– RFK Jr. looked promising but hes a Kennedy.
– Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time.
– Thats the basis of the GHE argument, that a real greenhouse warms when IR is trapped by glass.
– the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.
– The derivative of any straight line is zero
– The error here is about 1 ms over a century, and that is 1/1000nds of a second.
– The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation makes it clear that a gas cannot transfer more heat into a mixed gas than its mass percent.
– the Little Ice Age, circa 1850, explains the re-warming expected after an ice age.
– the only way a plane can fly backwards is in the human mind.
– the word thermopile, a reference to thermocouples in series, is not applicable to the semiconductors used in the IR detectors.
– there is no known genetic sequence for covid, or even HIV.
– There is no such thing as a general velocity vector for a body following a curved path.
– UV explains why CO2 radiates and absorbs in the IR band
– When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.
– who knows if the [pediodic] table is correct
– there is nothing in the works of Clausius related to the 2nd law that infers a net quantity of heat transfer.
– Noteno net warming till late 1997.
– Its not till an altitude of 260,000 feet that radiation equals convection for heat dissipation.
– the Sun is gradually cooling as it emits EM and eventually it will cool to a Red Giant.
– only the electrons are free to move and to form bonds by orbiting all three atoms in various configurations.
– I have electron theory down cold at the macro level and my understanding at the quantum level is decent.
– (On women’s day!) The Chipewyan, like the Iroquois, had another unique trait. They made the women did all the work.
– The Brits introduced democracy to the India
– Solar energy is purely direct current and limited in size to 12 or 24 volts.
– Neither solar nor wind power is compatible with our current 3-phase, 60 hz infrastructure.
– Kuhns work criticized the use of paradigms as being detrimental to science.
– it is not possible to transfer heatas heat between bodies via radiation
* * *
I could go on and on. The amount of crap Mr. Asshat drowns with which he floods this blog comment section is reaching infinity.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mr. Asshat has no real argument for his overall crankiness, ”
You seem to be bitterly disappointed that Dr Spencer doesn’t seem to be responding all that well to your inept attempts to force him to do your bidding.
I’m not surprised that your impotence might bother you. It may be that doing silly things such as describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are not the sorts of things that are likely to engender respect for your opinions. Rather the opposite.
Like other fanatical GHE cultists (who also can’t describe the GHE), you are reduced to shouting “Denier! Denier'” at anybody who doesn’t support your crazy fantasies – but you can’t even describe what they are supposedly denying!
Climate change, perhaps? You can’t name anybody who denies that climate is always changing, can you? How about “the greenhouse effect”? The one you described as “not cooling, slower cooling”. Who denies cooling, fast or slow?
Not very bright, Willard.
You finished by writing –
“I could go on and on. The amount of crap Mr. Asshat drowns with which he floods this blog comment section is reaching infinity.”
What business is it of yours, anyway? Have you tried presenting opinions based on fact, and letting others decide who is right, for themselves? I doubt it, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. There are probably at least a few out there who are even more ignorant or gullible than you.
Carry on believing you are the arbiter of what appears on this blog.
[having a laugh at the expense of the mentally afflicted. I know it’s bad form]
Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
Whining Wee Willy,
You keep writing –
“Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
Mik.e Flynn says:
September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Roy,
This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?”
Keep it up. You reinforce your strange fixation with Mike Flynn. Unrequited love, perhaps?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Flynnson
Everybody knows that before you started posting with ‘Swenson’ as nickname a few years ago, your previous nick name was ‘Mike Flynn’ – with a short ‘Amazed’ parenthesis between the two.
That you deny such a simple fact is the umpteenth proof of your stûpidity and mental insanity.
[ Would have been censored! ]
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“That you deny such a simple fact is the umpteenth proof of your stpidity and mental insanity..
If you say so, Binny, if you say so.
I notice you have to write “stpidity”. That’s demonstrating how clever you are, is it?
I don’t mind if your opinion is that Im stupid, because I don’t value your opinion. Some don’t think I’m stupid at all – so who do you think I should believe?
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gravity does not act like a string.
RLH,
Here’s Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation –
“every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. ”
You’re right. No mention of string. Didn’t you know about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation?
Newton used observations of the Moon to confirm his speculation about gravity. I guess you didn’t know that either. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
As you say, gravity does not act like a string.
The string is a viable model for gravity. Like gravity, it acts on the center of mass. It represents the vector needed to hold the ball in orbit.
RLH, you are welcome to present a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
But, you can’t….
> The string is a viable model for gravity.
Not really, Puffman, for the string isn’t a model. The model is a string and something else. You could suggest a yo-yo with a bearing in its middle, as I did many times. But that yo-yo isn’t a great model of a yo-yo in the first place…
Have you considered leaving theorizing to grown-ups?
Silly willy, just throwing crap against the wall merely indicates your childish desperation.
Until you can provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’ve got NOTHING.
“The string is a viable model for gravity.”
No it isn’t. Read the above.
RLH, silly willy was throwing crap at the wall. You don’t even have any crap!
You’ve got NOTHING.
You’re welcome to present your model of “orbiting without spin”. But, you don’t have one.
You’ve got NOTHING?
> NOTHING
I just gave you a model, Puffman. A yo-yo with a frictionless axle.
Silly sock puppet.
Wrong again, silly willy.
You don’t have a model of “orbiting without spin”. You’re just throwing more crap against the wall.
We would have to assume you mean swinging the yoyo, on its string, around you. If the yoyo axis were frictionless, a mark on the yoyo would always be facing a distant point, and the person swinging the yoyo would see different sides of it.
So, what you have created is a model of “orbiting with spin”, as the yoyo is rotating about the frictionless axle. If Moon were doing that, we would see all sides of it.
Adults call your effort, “FAIL”.
What will you throw against the wall next?
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Why no Moon Dragon crank has offered so far a numerical model of the motion of the Moon-Earth system?
It’s been what, five years now?
“Riddle me this, Puffman ”
You talk in riddles.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
A mathematical model is an abstract description of a concrete system using mathematical concepts and language. The process of developing a mathematical model is termed mathematical modeling.
What are you braying about?
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
A mathematical model is an abstract description of a concrete system using mathematical concepts and language. The process of developing a mathematical model is termed mathematical modeling.
What are you braying about?”
Are you really asking Mike Flynn to tell you why you copied and pasted what you did?
You really don’t understand how bizarre that seems, do you?
Mike Flynn,
Numerical astrophysics is a branch of astrophysics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to study and model the behavior of astronomical objects and phenomena. This can include simulating the formation of galaxies, modeling the evolution of stars, or predicting the motion of planets and other celestial bodies.
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Numerical astrophysics is a branch of astrophysics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to study and model the behavior of astronomical objects and phenomena. This can include simulating the formation of galaxies, modeling the evolution of stars, or predicting the motion of planets and other celestial bodies.
What are you braying about?”
You wrote it. Why would you expect Mike Flynn to know the workings of your disordered mind?
I suppose you might as well blame Mike Flynn. Or God. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for your ineptitude.
Or you could just keep on with your discordant braying, like the irrelevant donkey you are. You seem to have given up on the GHE. Are you feeling a bit foolish about your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
Important techniques of computational astrophysics include particle-in-cell (PIC) and the closely related particle-mesh (PM), N-body simulations, Monte Carlo methods, as well as grid-free (with smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) being an important example) and grid-based methods for fluids. In addition, methods from numerical analysis for solving ODEs and PDEs are also used.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
“the Moon also keeps the same face pointed at Earth because it cannot rotate on its axis”
Why?
Oooooh! Another silly gotcha!
Go on, confirm that you are so ignorant that you don’t know why the Moon keeps one face pointed to the Earth.
If you can convince me that you have made a reasonable effort to find out why, but remain ignorant, ask me and I’ll tell you why.
I’m always happy to assist those less knowledgeable than myself.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tidal locking.
I believe Benjamin Franklin assigned positive, negative, plus and minus to electrical charges as we know them now.
All well and good and useful. Franklin was completely wrong about electricity, thinking it to be a fluid (like scientists who thought heat to be a fluid), but it makes no difference. Franklin’s observations were sound, even though his speculations were wrong,
Just like Carnot’s speculations resulting in the Carnot cycle, which still applies, although Carnot believed in the caloric theory – which turned out to be wrong!
Arguing about current flow and in which direction current flows is pointless, unless there are specific circumstances which depend on your definition of current flow. Most domestic electricity supplies are alternating current anyway, so whichever definition of current flow you use, you will be wrong about 50% of the time (only joking).
Much ado about nothing, in general.
Still no valid description of the GHE, is there?
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You are suffering from a severe mental impairment, obviously.
Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is completely off the planet.
Where is Dr Spencers description of the GHE? You asked Mike Flynn –
“Have you found Roys description of the greenhouse effect yet?”.
What a stupid attempt at diversion! If you could find a description of the GHE, you would say so – even a delusional nutter like you would! But you can’t, of course, so you keep posting the same irrelevant and pointless link (what is it – 50 times so far?) appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn!
I’ll guarantee it doesn’t contain a description of the GHE, and doesn’t even refer to the mythical phenomenon.
You are away with the fairies again, Willard. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. I’d ask you to provide a few facts, but your grip on reality appears tenuous at best.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Weepy Wee Willy,
You are suffering from a severe mental impairment, obviously.
Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is completely off the planet.
Where is Dr Spencers description of the GHE? You asked Mike Flynn
“Have you found Roys description of the greenhouse effect yet?”.
What a stupid attempt at diversion! If you could find a description of the GHE, you would say so even a delusional nutter like you would! But you cant, of course, so you keep posting the same irrelevant and pointless link (what is it 50 times so far?) appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn!
Ill guarantee it doesnt contain a description of the GHE, and doesnt even refer to the mythical phenomenon.
You are away with the fairies again, Willard. Feel free to correct me if Im wrong. Id ask you to provide a few facts, but your grip on reality appears tenuous at best.
Mike Flynn,
In the end of that last comment under your proper Climateball handle, you squirmed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Read Roy Spencer’s opinion about GHE, this man is at the very least 1,000 times more experienced than you could ever become:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
*
And the 100% similarity between Swenson’s and Mike Flynn’s stubborn idiocy we can immediately see below Roy Spencer’s head post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-193043
June 14, 2015 at 4:00 AM
” Dr Spencer,
The surface of the Earth has cooled since its creation. That seems obvious. Therefore, the surface has lost more energy than it has received from all sources.
This includes heat from the Sun. If there was energy balance, the Earth would never cool.
Geophysicists have different figures, but around one to three millionths of a degree per year seems to cover it.
No energy balance at all. The surface heats during the day, cools at night. Winter is cooler than summer, daytime clouds cool things, nighttime clouds slow the rate of cooling.
I wont ask you what you think, obviously. Sorry to keep plugging away. “
Binny,
Appealing to the authority of Dr Spencer won’t help you much.
You write –
“Read Roy Spencers opinion about GHE, this man is at the very least 1,000 times more experienced than you could ever become:”
Really? And you know this how, precisely?
Mike Flynn expressed an opinion, supported by fact, as far as I can see.
Dr Spencer apparently did not disagree, but you might be able to quote him doing so, although I would be surprised. Mike Flynn’s facts seem reasonable to me, but you are free to say why you disagree.
Writing “And the 100% similarity between Swensons and Mike Flynns stubborn idiocy we can immediately see below Roy Spencers head post:” just makes you look like a fact-free fanatical GHE cultist. Others can form their own views.
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet? Surely there must be one – how hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn expressed an opinion”
Why are you distancing yourself from your master, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Related…
It’s been:
• more than 200 years since Fourier first made the analogy that the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse;
• more than 150 years since Foote & Tyndall identified the main greenhouse gases;
• 85 years since Callendar showed the planet was warming & caused by increases in Carbon Dioxide.
Climate indicators: https://ibb.co/T05nXVH
A,
Fourier’s speculation remained just that – never supported by experiment. Just like Tyndall’s speculation about the Sun’s heat being due to meteoric impacts, and the role of the luminiferous ether in chemical reactions.
Unfortunately for you, “greenhouse gases” is a term invented by fanatical GHE cultists, with no physical meaning – nor experimental support.
Callendar, like Arrhenius, may have speculated that CO2 had planet warming properties. Unfortunately, like Arrhenius’ speculation that electric shocks administered to children would make them smarter, and that compulsory sterilisation of inferior races was beneficial to humanity as a whole, his speculations were not supported by reproducible experiments.
You bang on about “climate indicators”. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observation – no more, no less. Maybe you are simply confused, rather than ignorant and gullible.
Mike Flynn,
It’s been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?”
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Wasted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?”
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Not one of them supplied a shred of evidence that a trace gas can warm the atmosphere. Neither have you.
You just cannot understand any of it.
A,
You wrote –
“You just cannot understand any of it.”
Of what? You could always save yourself a few keystrokes and write “Wow, just wow”, or something equally idiotic?
What are you, a fact-free fanatical GHE cultist living in a fantasy world quite detached from the real world?
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – and continues to do so.
Do you understand why?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“Of what?”
Of what what? You could always save yourself a few keystrokes and PSTer, or –
Is there anything equally silly?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not only our Moon – all moons in solar system do not rotate about their own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even those who spin?
For those observing on the central orbited object, like Clint R and Tesla. The moons do have inertial spin.
All moons in solar system behave the same. Moons do not spin in solar system.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… as observed from the central orbited object. There may be a few exceptions for smaller moons.
Finally the data is updated.
Global for Feb
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics for Feb
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
Ball4, Cristos, RLH
All the moons are rotating once per orbit around their planet (or not rotating at all if you are a non spinner). Each in its own reference frame.
But whatl happens if you measure their rottion relative to a common reference frame such as the distant stars?
They are all rotating at different rates.
Which is more sensible? Use a common reference frame which allows you to measure all the inertial rotation rates, or use different reference frames ? If you do the latter you end up with a collection of 🌙 all NOT ROTATING at DIFFERENT RATES.
Whichever ref. being used has to be identified. All motion is relative.
Non-spinners use themselves as the reference. Everything moves or does not move relative to them. They seem unable to go beyond that to more sophisticated references such as the inertial reference frame.
The non-spinners remind me of the old joke about the pop star Liam Gallagher.To change a light bulb he stood on a chair, held up the light bulb and the universe rotated around him.
Knocking down straw men is fun, huh, Entropic Man?
Wrt an Earth-Centered Inertial reference frame, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
To judge axial rotation of the Earth, you would use an inertial reference frame centered on the Sun.
And so on, and so forth.
” Wrt an Earth-Centered Inertial reference frame, the moon does not rotate on its own axis. ”
Your scientific proof for this strange claim? Where is it?
…as provided in the previous 50,000 comment moon debate, over several years.
The point I was making is that “Non-Spinners” are not making the mistake that Entropic Man suggests. It’s so irritating that people are still confused about the whole “reference frame” thing. Scroll down and see Swenson’s comment on “absolute rotation”. It’s the same point I have tried to make so many times with the Mt. Everest or grains of sand examples.
Obviously, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis once per day just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about the Earth’s axis, instead…same as every other part of the Earth. However, “wrt the fixed stars” you could convince yourself that Mt. Everest was rotating on its own axis once per day.
“The Sagnac experiment and later similar experiments showed that a stationary object on the surface of the Earth will rotate once every rotation of the Earth when using stars as a stationary reference point”
Graham D. Warner handwaves to what everbody knows is pure BS.
Including him, hopefully.
“Graham D. Warner handwaves to what everbody knows is pure BS.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
I didn’t ask you for your usual, nonsensical blah blah a la MOTL/MOTR, ball-on-a-string and the like.
I asked you for a scientific proof.
If you don’t have any, thanks for not replying
I’m OK with you not understanding, Bindidon.
Graham D, Warner always ends up gaslighting.
He said, “nonsensical blah blah”, Little Willy, suggesting that he doesn’t understand. That’s fine with me.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
If you say so, Little Willy.
“All motion is relative.”
As Newton observed.
We’ve covered this nonsense so many times it’s boring. But, it’s another good example that the cult can’t learn.
The “reference” is the direction of travel. If a car is going down a straight road, it is NOT spinning. If the road curves, the car is still NOT spinning.
Or using the simple ball-on-a-string, if the ball were actually spinning the string would wrap around it.
The cult can’t learn and just keeps throwing the same nonsense at the wall.
” All the moons are rotating once per orbit around their planet… ”
Not sure, Entropic man.
Look for example at Jupiter’s moons Elara and Himalia:
https://solarviews.com/eng/himalia.htm
https://solarviews.com/eng/elara.htm
The rotation periods for Pasiphae, Sinope, Lysithea, Carme, Ananke and Leda are unknown.
Perhaps I should have been more pedantic.
” All the TIDALLY LOCKED moons are rotating once per orbit around their planet. “
Pedantic? No, accurate.
EM,
It’s interesting to note that from the viewpoint of the fixed stars, a stationary object on the Earth is rotating about the objects axis once per day.
Bindidon will no doubt agree “The Sagnac experiment and later similar experiments showed that a stationary object on the surface of the Earth will rotate once every rotation of the Earth when using stars as a stationary reference point.” – Wikipedia.
All a bit silly, really. You sit there at your keyboard, while you, your chair, your keyboard, are all rotating about their respective internal axes once a day.
It makes me dizzy just thinking about it. I think Ill go out and gaze at the Moon. At least it doesn’t seem to be rotating – unlike me and everything around me.
I suppose it all depends on your point of view.
Thank you for this reference, Swenson:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
It explains what I have been trying to get across to people on this blog for years.
“The objective reality of the ball bouncing off the outer hull is confirmed both by a rotating and by a non-rotating observer, hence the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference.”
They’re talking about OPR – Objective Physical Reality. Just like the OPR for the ball on a string is that it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball itself; the ball is not rotating on its own internal axis.
“In physics, the concept of absolute rotation – rotation independent of any external reference – is a topic of debate about relativity, cosmology, and the nature of physical laws.”
Hence why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
The ignorant Flynnson is as always manipulating the discussion with his nonsensical
” from the viewpoint of the fixed stars… ”
which makes no sense at all in Astronomy.
*
Astronomers follow the expression nailed by Isaac Newton instead, who wrote in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV of his Principia Scientifica:
” ” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39'. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25 1/2} et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'. ”
That is, in English:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56'; Mars in 24h.39'; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h.56'; the Sun in 25 1/2; days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43'. ” ”
*
And, as I endlessly repeat since many years, Newton never wrote anywhere that celestial bodies would rotate (or orbit) differently when being observed with respect to the fixed stars.
He clearly wrote that the measurement of the rotation PERIOD, e.g. Sun’s, with respect to Earth (27 1/2 days) is not the same as with respect to the fixed stars (25 1/2 days).
Simply because when you measure the motions of celestial bodies with respect to Earth, the measurement is biased by Earth’s own motions.
Binny,
You wrote –
“And, as I endlessly repeat since many years, Newton never wrote anywhere that celestial bodies would rotate (or orbit) differently when being observed with respect to the fixed stars.”
But then you immediately followed up with –
“He clearly wrote that the measurement of the rotation PERIOD, e.g. Suns, with respect to Earth (27 1/2 days) is not the same as with respect to the fixed stars (25 1/2 days).”
Possibly a tad confusing? Does “rotation” not relate to “rotate”? Is the Sun a celestial body?
Does it make any difference anyway, or are you just trying to avoid the ridiculous proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes the planet hotter – when you say that’s nonsense, yourself.
What’s your current view on the GHE (not that you can describe it, of course)? Heating? Cooling? No effect? All a bit vague, isn’t it? Be a man – say what you think – don’t let fanatical GHE cultists sway your thinking! Otherwise, others might think you are nothing but a soft and squishy girly-man. Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
For once your squirrel is welcome!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
…and rightly so.
Flynnson is either permanently drunk or is alzheimered.
I write
” And, as I endlessly repeat since many years, Newton never wrote anywhere that celestial bodies would rotate (or orbit) differently when being observed with respect to the fixed stars.
He clearly wrote that the measurement of the rotation PERIOD, e.g. Suns, with respect to Earth (27 1/2 days) is not the same as with respect to the fixed stars (25 1/2 days). ”
His completely idîotic answer:
” Possibly a tad confusing? Does ‘rotation’ not relate to ‘rotate’? Is the Sun a celestial body? ”
It’s incredible.
*
Many of ask ask ourselves: Why reply to such an idîot?
But unfortunately, we can’t stop doing.
*
Heil Freedom of Speech!
…and Graham D. Warner also ends up gaslighting.
Now let’s see:
Earth’s and Moon’s orbital period around sun is
365,25 days
–
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days
–
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days
–
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days
–
*****
Let’s have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
–
Moon’s diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
–
Moon’s sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
–
*****
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
–
Let’s do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
——————————–
=========0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moon’s sidereal period rate!
–
*****
There is not any Moon’s rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… as observed from Earth.
And what is Moon’s rate of rotation about its own axis then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Depends on relative to what reference, Christos. All motion is relative.
"…and Graham D. Warner also ends up gaslighting"
Never have, never will.
Christos,
The Moon spins on itself every 27 days or so.
Cheers.
Willard,
Moon does what is her pleasure for some billions years now.
–
Here it is Moon’s story in short:
At first Moon was a small planet, like Mercury. Moon never wanted to become some other, some other bigger planet’s satellite.
But nearby there also was a molten planet Earth-Mars orbiting sun.
Exactly on the same orbit, where orbiting sun, where also a smaller planet Moon was orbiting sun.
Moon was some millions km ahead of planet Earth-Mars on the same orbit.
Moon, because of its smaller weight, moved a little bit slower, and, eventually planet Earth-Mars crashed on the smaller planet Moon.
Moon, which because of its smaller size had accomplished cooling a strong crust, so Moon withstood the tremendous impact.
The bigger planet Earth-Mars, which was in very hot molten state yet, on the opposite – the themendous impact split the bigger planet Earth-Mars into two planets, the smaller Mars, which went some distance further from the sun and continued orbiting there, at the new 1,5 AU,
and the larger planet Earth, which besides of splitting, grasped the smaller planet Moon, and captured it as an eternally orbiting Earth double-planet satellite.
Astronomers now working onto accomplishing a mathematical model, which is based on Earth and Mars respective mutual motions, their distancing from sun ratio, their respective orbital excentricity variables etc… A model which would be able determining the exact time of the bigger planet Earth-Mars on the smaller planet Moon the tremendous impact – give or take a million years.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The Moon would not spin if it could not.
If you proved that it could not, then it would not.
Chances are that you did not prove that it could not spin.
Best regards,
W
https://climateball.net
“Moon, because of its smaller weight, moved a little bit slower”
That is nonsense, Christos. Not how planetary motion works.
Willard,
The smaller Moon orbited sun a little bit faster than Earth-Mars.
On the second thought, it was the small primordial planet Moon with its solid crust, which had striken the primordial bigger and still hot-molten planet Earth-Mars.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The Moon has been formed with material coming from the Earth.
That new object must have been spinning. While spinning, gravity changed its form, just like tides do. That form eventually stabilized the spin. It did not stop it.
The stabilization effect synchronizes orbit and spin. When the synchronicity is 1:1, it’s a full lock. Hence why it’s called a spin-orbit lock.
Repeating your usual tedium won’t change these facts.
Best,
W
The primordial planet Moon, as every planet, was spinning, allright.
Moon very slowly distances itself from Earth’s gravity. Eventually, Moon reaches the Mars’ orbit just in time, just in time sun becomes a red giant star, a red giant star with Earth’s orbit diameter.
Planet Earth will be doomed, but not Moon.
Moon will become a small planet again for a while.
Moon will be safe then, Moon will continue orbiting sun at the same distance as Mars’ orbit, and, eventually, Moon wil become Mars’ satellite.
It will be very cold at the time, since sun would be a white dwarf then.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> was spinning
Is spinning, Christos.
The Moon is spinning.
Gravity ain’t no string.
There are not tectonic plates movements though…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oops. Wrong place.
Finally the data is updated.
Global for Feb
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics for Feb
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In general yes, everything rotates. It is to do with something called angular moment. Gravity is the central force in the Universe, because it is the only one which has a significant pull over large distances. When things collapse under their own gravity in space (i.e. clouds of gas and dust), any small amount of asymmetry in the collapse will be enough start it spinning. Even if it spins by a tiny amount, as it collapses, angular momentum conservation will mean it spins more and more quickly – just like an spinning ice-skater pulling their arms into their body and spinning more quickly. This means that all coherent masses are spinning – e.g. asteroids, neutron stars, galaxies, quasars.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
The universe itself might be spinning.
Moon Dragon cranks clearly do.
Test question: What’s wrong with that nonsense?
Willard wrote –
“Moon Dragon cranks clearly do.”
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard wrote
“Moon Dragon cranks clearly do.”
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard wrote
“Moon Dragon cranks clearly do.”
Mike Flynn,
I wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?”
The idea that stars and planets form out of dust clouds is just that, a theory. No one has ever seen a star or a planet form.
There are no forces acting in the universe to create an angular momentum in a cloud of dust. Even a circulatory motion would require a temperature difference and there’s no proof that difference exists at the 4K claimed average temperature of the universe.
The term angular momentum is misconstrued in science. A true angular momentum requires a mass that is constrained to move along an angular path. That means the mass need to be connected to an axle with a rigid connection. That cannot be claimed for the Moon because all it ever has is a linear momentum. Newton confirmed that in Principia.
The lunar orbit is a resultant path between gravitational force and linear momentum. It’s not a true resultant as we would find with two forces acting on the Moon, however, it is a resultant, but not one that can be claimed to produce an angular momentum. In order for the Moon, or any other body to have an angular momentum, the momentum must be in the direction of the path. The lunar momentum is always tangential to the path.
Therefore, it makes no sense to conclude that dust particles can form a cohesive body with an angular momentum. Certainly, if they formed a solid body, and the body somehow was subjected to a torque so it could rotate, then an angular momentum could be claimed.
As always, Robertson opinionated, unscientific lie:
” That cannot be claimed for the Moon because all it ever has is a linear momentum. Newton confirmed that in Principia. ”
Newton never confirmed that our Moon has only linear momentum.
I once stated the page and volume of Principia in which he stated it. He actually used the term ‘linear motion’, but momentum is the same thing as motion since a body that is not moving has zero momentum.
Newton’s meaning is clear to anyone who has studied physics. Unless an orbiting body is attached to an axle rigidly it can only have linear momentum. In order to have an angular momentum a mass must be constrained to move along a curved path, either through attachment to a rigid structure or being guided by a conduit of some sort.
There’s no evidence that you’ve ever studied physics.
A,
There’s no evidence that he hasn’t either.
I can’t see any evidence that Sir Isaac Newton had any training in physics. He seemed to be quite fluent in Greek and Latin, though.
Is there a point to you writing “Theres no evidence that youve ever studied physics.”?
There’s no evidence that you are not a fanatical and clueless GHE cultist, either. You can’t even describe the GHE! How sad is that?
Mike Flynn,
There’s no evidence you learned anything since Roy told you to start your own blog in 2019.
“Mike Flynn,
Theres no evidence you learned anything since Roy told you to start your own blog in 2019.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mimicking Graham D. Warner isn’t learning.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Not before you spread your never-ending nonsense everywhere.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Ce Flynnson est un emmerdeur invraisemblable.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
For the ignorant, opinionated Robertson:
Newton never confirmed that our Moon has only linear momentum.
Nowhere.
Show us the source of your idiôtic blah blah in Newton’s Principia, right now, you incompetent, scienceless braggart.
*
I’m afraid I can wait till my RIP moment for this source.
“Show us the source of your iditic blah blah in Newtons Principia, right now, you incompetent, scienceless braggart.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The angular momentum of the Moon in its orbit is about 2.89805e34 kg m^2/s.
What are you braying about?
Willard,
You wrote on multiple occasions –
“Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
For once your squirrel is welcome!”
Are you getting much traction for your obsession? I suppose appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn gives you more credibility, but I’m not sure that references to a non-existent squirrel will help.
Have you updated your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”, or are you trying to get Mike Flynn and Dr Spencer to adopt it as is?
I don’t think you’ll have much luck, but let me know if I’m wrong.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon – like any orbiting object – is kept in position through a combination of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum. The moon’s linear momentum is not conserved because the Earth’s gravity exerts a force on it.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…”Non-spinners use themselves as the reference. Everything moves or does not move relative to them. They seem unable to go beyond that to more sophisticated references such as the inertial reference frame”.
***
That is a cop out. Why is it in engineering we never discussed reference frames when calculating rotational periods or harmonic motion in general? Reference frames are required only when relative motion is present. Otherwise, in real life situation, it is understood that general motion is all taking place in the same reference frame.
An example. In our engineering drawing class we were using vectors to calculate the relative motion of a rowboat being rowed across a river flowing at 5 mph. We had to calculate where we’d land on the opposite shore provided we rowed at x mph. Even that did not require a statement of a reference frame since it could be calculated using vector addition. However, it could have been applied to the relative motion of a person walking away from the bank at an angle at a certain number of mph.
The point is, most engineering calculations can be done without reference frames and as someone who has done oodles of such calculations in engineering problem sets, I find it ludicrous that reference frames should be applied to such a simple problem.
When a spinner gets trapped in a logical argument, he/she resorts to intangibles like reference frames. Using them incorrectly, he/she concludes that a car driving around an oval track is actually spinning around its COG. The argument goes that relative to the stars the car is actually rotating about its COG.
That stems from a misunderstanding of rotation about an axis. If we had a car pointed north and we wanted to rotate it to point west, we’d need a turntable of some sort so we could rotate it about its COG. If the same car performs the same rotation while driving it can only do it by losing traction and having the car ‘spin out’, a dangerous condition.
A car orbiting a track is not rotating about its COG. It is performing curvilinear translation, not rotation.
“In our engineering drawing class we were using vectors…”
Hogwash. That’s not what engineering drawing class has ever been about.
You lie.
A,
You wrote –
“Hogwash. Thats not what engineering drawing class has ever been about.
You lie.”
How many different engineering drawing classes have you attended? None? What’s wrong with asking Gordon to support his statement, if you don’t believe him?
Your accusation of lying seems based on an appeal to your own authority, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Did you just make that up too, or were you just ignorant and gullible enough to believe someone else who made it up?
I’ll bet you can’t even make up a valid description of the GHE. Is everyone who claims that a GHE exists, a liar? Or is that reserved for people with whom you disagree, when you can’t find facts to support your disagreement?
You might as well accuse people of lying, if you’ve got nothing better. Maybe someone even more gullible and ignorant than you will value your opinion.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
How much you’d be willing to bet?
Wonky Wee Willy.
“Mike Flynn,
How much youd be willing to bet?” Is English your second language? Only joking, you’re just sloppy and inept.
I’d be willing to bet a largish amount that your description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling” – is unlikely to be championed by Dr Spencer anytime soon.
But you’re only trying for a gotcha, aren’t you? You probably intend to provide a link to something irrelevant – Mike Flynn not mentioning the GHE, for example.
So come on Willard, put up or shut up, as they say.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“I bet”
Do you, or are you just braying ineptly?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy.
“Mike Flynn,
How much youd be willing to bet?” Is English your second language? Only joking, youre just sloppy and inept.
Id be willing to bet a largish amount that your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” is unlikely to be championed by Dr Spencer anytime soon.
But youre only trying for a gotcha, arent you? You probably intend to provide a link to something irrelevant Mike Flynn not mentioning the GHE, for example.
So come on Willard, put up or shut up, as they say.
Are you a girly-man, all mouth and no trousers?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You said
I bet
Do you, or are you just braying ineptly?
Cheers.
You’re definitely strange, laddie.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You are definitely Mike Flynn.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You are definitely Mike Flynn.”
Sounds fair to me. Mike Flynn definitely sounds like Mike Flynn. Even the spelling is the same! Is that a demonstration of your mental capacity? You do realise that water is definitely water, do you?
[very strange lad is Willard]
Mike Flynn,
You finally agree that the claim that you are Mike Flynn is quite trivial.
Progress!
You’re a jerk. Vectors can be drawn on paper, don’t you know? I also took a course in vector calculus where we added them using matrices. I prefer drawing them since it is easier to visualize them. In fact, we used freebody diagrams extensively and that meant replacing forces with vectors.
It might also surprise you that we learned to calculate the true length of a line drawn on a cylinder, in an engineering drawing course.
When you get your foot out of your mouth maybe you could investigate deeper. Engineering drawing is not a course in drafting, it is a course in the application of engineering principles graphically. We did learn basic drafting techniques but we also learned freehand sketching in 3-D. It is important in engineering to be able to sketch hence the use of engineering paper, which is paper with gridded lines on it.
I learned to draw a decent freehand circle using gridded engineering paper and tangent lines.
One of our first assignments was in perspective. We had to take a piece of cellophane and sketch the perspective of a building onto it using a felt pen. The aim was to teach us how line tended toward infinity with distance.
I had never thought of it before but I taped the cellophane to my car windows so I could see a large office building through it from one end. I sketched the building lines and sure enough, the lines tended to converge a bit from left to right. They don’t in reality but they do as the eye/brain sees them.
That’s how we learned to sketch to produce depth. Even if you look at the picture of a person’s face from an angle, the lines are slightly foreshortened on the far side of the face. That’s an example of perspective as well.
“engineering drawing class we were using vectors to calculate the relative motion of a rowboat being rowed across a river flowing at 5 mph”
You are a pathological liar.
A,
“You are a pathological liar.”
Ah, and I should value your opinion because . . . ?
Actually, a vector has a magnitude and direction. Simply drawing vectors suffices in many cases to avoid lengthy and complicated mathematical processes.
Apart from figuring how far along the riverbank you have to go to meet the boat from the other side, vectors are used in other areas. An example is Feynman’s use of “little arrows” for manipulating probability magnitudes. Or for calculating approximate forces – just use a ruler and protractor if absolute accuracy is not your main concern.
Sir Isaac Newton calculated the date of the apocalypse, and the exact dimensions of the New Jerusalem Temple. Do you think he was a pathological liar, or just human – exercising freedom of thought?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Mike Flynn too much for you, Willard?
Mike Flynn,
You are Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> A car orbiting a track
Mr. Asshat is dreaming of space cars.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Only five repetitions? Come on, I’m sure you can do better.
Try for a hundred. That should impress somebody of limited mental capacity – a fanatical GHE cultist, for example.
Mike Flynn,
You can go now.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Best to ignore Graham D. Warner‘s PSTering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 355.2 km/sec
density: 14.43 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Mar 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 141
“Sunspot AR3615 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that poses a threat for X-class solar flares. ”
There are 9 numbered spots, 5 are leaving the nearside pretty soon.
and that AR3615 spot will be directly facing Earth in couple days.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 197 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
“density: 14.43 protons/cm3”
***
I want to protest…again…that electrons are not being represented. Since the proton is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom it must have has an electron at some point, there should be an equal number of electrons in the solar wind.
As the sole representative of electrons in the universe, I protest this biased treatment of my clients.
I have vague recollections, and can’t precisely remember if you are fan boy of the electric sun. Wiki mentions the band, but:
” On the “Electric Sun” Hypothesis
A response to Don Scott’s ” The Electric Sun” webpage, this webpage of mine is as yet incomplete, and therefore a “work in progress”. It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. I contend that the detailed & powerful predictability associated with standard theory far outclasses the prose-based sentimental approach of the electric-sun hypothesis.” etc
https://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html
Some also think Sun has liquid ocean, not sure if that is related.
gb…look up Wal Thornhill and the electric universe. It was not as much his theory on the electric universe that got to me as his comment bout spacetime. He thought that trying to fit a 4 dimensional theory into a 3-dimnsional universe was a bit off.
There is ample evidence that you are a pathological liar.
A,
“There is ample evidence that you are a pathological liar.”
Oh yes, and you arent going to produce the “evidence” because it’s super secret – or maybe because people might laugh at your silliness. Maybe nobody values your opinions.
If you are trying to be gratuitously insulting, you might find it only works if your target values your opinions. Why should anybody at all (of average intelligence) care what you think?
Please let me know if you have awesome secret super-powers. I might review my assessment, and tremble in my bare feet at your pronouncements.
Carry on.
> you arent going
Step 1 – Denial.
***
> to produce the evidence
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
***
> because its super secret
Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
***
Well done, Mike Flynn!
A,
“There is ample evidence that you are a pathological liar.”
Oh yes, and you arent going to produce the evidence because its super secret or maybe because people might laugh at your silliness. Maybe nobody values your opinions.
If you are trying to be gratuitously insulting, you might find it only works if your target values your opinions. Why should anybody at all (of average intelligence) care what you think?
Please let me know if you have awesome secret super-powers. I might review my assessment, and tremble in my bare feet at your pronouncements.
Carry on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Silly Willy,
You asked –
“Do you really think youre being funny?”
Why do you want to know?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why do you want to know?”
What makes you think I want to know?
Silly sock puppet!
“What makes you think I want to know?”
Because you asked?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Because you asked?”
What kind of question is that?
Cheers.
Solar wind
speed: 800.1 km/sec
density: 11.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Mar 24
“A BIG CME IS COMING: Yesterday’s X1-class solar flare (described below) hurled a bright CME toward Earth. NASA and NOAA models agree that the storm cloud should reach our planet by the early hours of March 25th (UT).”
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 209 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.54×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
7 numbered spot, one coming from farside which will be numbered and number spot leaving the nearside.
Solar wind
speed: 604.7 km/sec
density: 0.51 protons/cm3
“THE DANGER HAS NOT PASSED: Yesterday’s severe geomagnetic storm is over, but the calm might not last. Giant shape-shifting sunspot AR3615 poses a continued threat for Earth-directed solar flares. NOAA forecasters say there is a 25% chance of X-flares today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. If the sunspot blows, it would give sky watchers in Europe and the USA a second chance at auroras this week.”
The low density is a ebb due to faster and denser solar wind.
Sunspot number: 145
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.65×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.9% Low
7 numbered sunspots. None are leaving soon and none appear to be coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 456.7 km/sec
density: 0.01 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 149
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.76×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low
8 numbered spots, with one leaving to farside. None coming from farside side, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 388.3 km/sec
density: 0.02 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 114
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.76×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low
6 numbered spot, one going to farside. Still no spots from farside coming to rescue. 1/2 nearside is spotless. The monster spot is so big it will take 3 days to go the farside.
Solar wind
speed: 324.6 km/sec
density: 0.23 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.91×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.8% Low
5 numbered spot, one is going to farside, none coming from farside, yet. 3615 will take 2 to 3 days to leave nearside.
Could have spotless day in less than 1 week.
swenson…”Arguing about current flow and in which direction current flows is pointless, unless there are specific circumstances which depend on your definition of current flow”.
***
It’s pointless when doing calculations, as long as you keep tract of voltage polarities. When applying Kircheoff’s Law it is irrelevant which direction current flows as long as the sign of voltage drops is respected. In a series circuit, it is fairly unimportant but in more complex series-parallel circuits it becomes an issue, especially when voltage drops across semiconductor junctions are involved.
My argument re current direction is that students are being told blatant lies in engineering school. If lies are now kosher in university then it is irrelevant that lies are also being taught about the GHE and AGW.
I started this debate about current flow because alarmists were insinuating that universities were honourable institutions that taught real science wrt to the GHE. Also, mechanical engineering textbooks were being used as authority figures re heat being transferred in both directions by radiation. I countered with the example that EE textbooks teach nonsense about current flowing positive to negative.
Other than that, the direction is fairly irrelevant. It has never gotten in my way even though schematics are laid out for conventional current flow and I accept only electron flow. It means I have to read the schematic backwards, where conventional symbols for diodes and transistors point in the direction of conventional current flow.
With AC current flow, the voltage polarity that drives the current can be a problem, even hazardous. In North America, homes are generally supplied by transformers that use a centre-tapped 240 volt secondary winding. The centre tap is grounded at the pole and delivered to the home so that the centre tap is grounded in the home as well.
In the breaker panel in the home, the power is delivered as two hot wires, often red in colour, and a white ground neutral conductor. The white neutral goes to a neutral bus that is grounded to the ground bus, but only at the panel. The codes in Canada and the US require that the neutral not be grounded to real ground at any other point in the home.
That’s why most appliance connecting plugs have prongs of different sizes. Even the the voltage is AC, it is polarized in the receptacles to prevent plugs from being connected backwards. The silver connector inside the plug is intended to always connect to neutral while the bronze coloured connector is connected to the hot side.
That is designed to prevent shocks where metal covers on utilities and tools are connected to the grounded neutral connector. If the plug was to be plugged into the wall receptacle backwards, it is possible the hot side could be connected to the appliance/tool metal case. That would mean someone handling the appliance who was somehow connected to ground would have the full supplied voltage of 120 volts across him/her.
It used to be a practice as well with a type of receiver called an AC/D.C receiver, that was intended to theoretically be run on AC or D.C, that the neutral was connected directly to the chassis. If the non-polarized plug got connected backwards, it mean the unit’s chassis was now hot and presented a hazard. To get around that, isolation transformers were installed in shops to isolate the panel’s hot/neutral from the secondary.
So, I am not just venting mindlessly, I have seen the danger in theory being taught incorrectly and I think it is crucial that engineering student be taught the fundamentals correctly. In the electronics field, all students are taught that current flows negative to positive. If they have to interact with engineers who were taught the opposite, it could prove hazardous.
You are pathological.
“You are pathological.”
And? Or are you just trolling because you feel annoyed, upset, or offended?
Man up. Get a grip. If you believe someone is quite mad, why should you be concerned about their opinion?
What are you – a girly man? (As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say).
” What are you a girly man? ”
It’s unbelievable what an unrepairable crazy programmed blog bot can ask, isn’t it?
Binny,
What are you – a girly man?
What happened to your boasts about your balls, your cojones, and extolling your machismo in general? Gone all woke and wimpy, have you?
Have you decided that trying to magic a valid GHE description into reality is too hard? Nothing to do with CO2 after all?
I don’t blame you for trying to avoid facing reality. You have a fair bit of company. They’re a bit gullible, possibly ignorant, or a wee bit dim, but why should you care?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Willard,
You wrote –
“Do you really think youre being funny?”
Why do you ask?
Are you mad?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why do you ask?”
Because you told Roy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Cheers.
You wrote – “Because you told Roy:”
You best ask “Roy”, then. What do think? What’s it to you, anyway?
Are you seeking help from me on how to be humorous?
Feel free to ask. I will feel free to laugh at you.
Just like I laugh at your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. You might not find it humorous, but it certainly is to me.
I don’t know about “Roy”. You’d have to ask him, but you are obviously too gutless to act like a normal human being.
[more laughter ensued]
Mike Flynn,
You advise –
“You best ask “Roy”.”
Why the scare quotes, and why would I ask someone who asked you to start your own blog if you think you’re funny?
Silly sock puppet!
Ark reveals his ignorance on the subject. Manages only an ad hom.
Robertson
” Ark reveals his ignorance on the subject. ”
Ivanovich is far less ignorant than you are. All what you post on this blog is either egotistic trash or pure lie.
*
” Manages only an ad hom. ”
And YOU complain about ad homs by others?
Here is your latest harsh insult.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 16, 2024 at 10:07 PM
” Hey, a**hole, you are a guest here, leave Roy out of this you creep. ”
You don’t even have the balls to write the word ‘as is’.
And I can’t count the number of posts you’ve made where you insult people as “cheâting SÔB”. Too many of them over the years.
Binny,
You wrote –
“And I cant count the number of posts youve made where you insult people as “cheting SB””
How far can you count?
If you are having difficulty, you could probably ask a fanatical GHE cultist for help, but they might tend to add a bit here and there, to come up with a higher number. That would suit you, I suppose?
By the way, are you still of the opinion that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is of no interest to you? This seems odd, given your past pronouncements. What do think is causing thermometers to show higher temperatures in certain areas?
Maybe you could think about it, and let me know – when you have figured out how to count Gordon’s posts.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“How far can you count?”
I can count at least one Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Hang on just a second there Willard!
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You wrote
How far can you count?
I can count at least one Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!”
That’s two. Are you like Binny, and can only count so far? Are numbers greater than one a bit of a mental strain?
Here’s a challenge for you – count up all the times you have written “Mike Flynn”.
Then give just one rational reason justifying that number.
You really are an obsessive little donkey, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Hang on just a second”
*Hangs on a second.*
Looks like it didn’t change the fact that you’re Mike Flynn!
Silly sock puppet.
“Looks like it didnt change the fact that youre Mike Flynn!”
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Best to humour madmen, lest they self harm.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Best to humour madmen.”
Are you finally getting why I respond to you?
Silly sock puppet!
“Looks like it didn’t change the fact that you’re Mike Flynn!”
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Best to humour madmen, lest they self harm.
Feel free to use my words – I don’t mind the flattery – even from those less capable than myself.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Best to humour a madmen.”
Do you think you’re funny?
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson you’ve been spamming my posts on this blog for weeks now trying to get me to engage. Well, here I am.
What is your degree in and what year did you graduate?
A,
Why do you ask? You’re just going to try and be as annoying as you can, aren’t you?
Or do you seriously intend to appeal to Gordon’s authority? I’d like to see that!
Ho, ho, ho!
You still haven’t managed to provide evidence of freedom from intellectual impairment yet. Why should anyone respond to the utterances of a total stranger – of possibly unsound mind?
Would you? (You don’t need to answer that, of course).
Go stalk someone else, it’s none of your business. I have nothing against you personally and come after you only because you are here to push the AGW theory in a blatant manner. If you want to talk civilly, then cut the propaganda and discuss the science.
My educational background is irrelevant, as is yours. You can either discus science or you can’t. The only advantage a degree offers is the ability to go more deeply into specific areas of a disciple.
I would never debate a Ph.D in nuclear physics or quantum theory at an in-depth mathematical level. However, I can surely demand that they explain their theories subjectively without the complex math. As Feynman claimed, if I don’t understand a subject I cannot teach it. Then he went ahead and did it anyway. Another top physicist, David Bohm, claimed that any theory that has only math to back it is garbage. Bohm also pointed out that time is a human invention.
We are all human and subject to the vagaries of the human mind. That is the great equalizer. A layman in charge of his mental faculties re awareness has an advantage over a geek with only a Ph.D and who has learned by absorbing and regurgitating.
I was embarrassed once by a foreman in a steel fabrication plant where I was working during school. I had been braying about my expertise in electronics and he collared me, challenging me to hook up a 3-phase arc welder. Although I understood the theory I had no idea how to wire the welder. Neither did he but he knew which wire went to which terminal and had been testing my bs level.
I have learned along the way to de-emphasize my university experience and follow Feynman’s principle. It doesn’t matter how many titles you have, or letters behind your name, you either understand a scientific principle or you don’t. Unfortunately there are many lettered academic who don’t know what they are talking about and who only regurgitate bs they have learned at school.
Then again, there are Ph/Ds who do know their stuff and who have impressed me deeply. My engineering profs were in that category. I was amazed at their ability to dissect a problem into its parts and arrive at a solution. There were also profs at my uni who were pure asses.
Katherine Hayhoe has a Ph.D., and she claimed we should cut our emissions for the purpose of achieving a stable climate, which doesn’t exist.
A prominent climate alarmist, Naomi Oreskes, started the propaganda about 95% of scientists agreeing with the AGW model. She is also known for claiming consensus is a valid form of science. But she kept her best for her book, Merchants of Doubt, where she accused several dead scientists of creating doubt about the GHE/AGW fantasy…
https://web.archive.org/web/20170421235915/http://marshall.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/OKeefe-and-Kueter-Clouding-the-Truth-A-Critique-of-Merchants-of-Doubt.pdf
A close ally, Stefan Rahmstorf is one of the originators of the propaganda that the 2nd law is not contradicted, provided a mysterious net balance of energy is positive. Rahmstorf had his butt kicked in a debate with Richard Lindzen and was never the same afterward. At least Gavin Schmidt had the good sense to refuse a debate with Lindzen.
> which doesnt exist.
Step 1 – Denial.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
No offence intended your blog, your rules. I thought a bit of humour might help.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think youre being funny?
Youre dumb as fuck, Willard.
Oh my sweet adolescent Monkey Man, NO U –
https://tinyurl.com/climate-stability
Walter,
You wrote –
“You’re dumb as fuck, Willard.”
I know you are only being polite, but you don’t need to be. Willard is not as smart as you think. There’s dumb, dumber – and Willard.
Only joking – I have no idea of how dumb Willard really is. Some idea can be gathered from his description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”, and his fixated obsession with Mike Flynn, who apparently didn’t reciprocate Willard’s protestations of presumably homosexual love! I really don’t know if Willard is male or female (or one masquerading as the other).
All very mysterious. Willard does seem to be trying to get people to notice him, by trolling. What good it does him (being just another anonymous would-be troll) is beyond me.
Who knows what motivates fanatical GHE cultists? Do they really think that they can stop the climate from changing? Of course they do! Strange, very strange.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Cheers.
Willard,
Your obsessive fixation on Mike Flynn seems to be getting the better of you.
Do you have any waking moments when you do not think of him? What about your dreams?
Mike Flynn doesnt seem to be taking your bait, and neither does anybody else.
Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, Mike Flynn might appear! What do you think?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You PSTer me, I respond to you.
You peddle your usual crap, I recall that you’re a silly sock puppet.
I think it’s only fair.
Cheers.
Willard,
Your obsessive fixation on Mike Flynn seems to be getting the better of you.
Do you have any waking moments when you do not think of him? What about your dreams?
Mike Flynn doesnt seem to be taking your bait, and neither does anybody else.
Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, Mike Flynn might appear! What do you think?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Willard,
Your obsessive fixation on Mike Flynn seems to be getting the better of you.
Do you have any waking moments when you do not think of him? What about your dreams?
Mike Flynn doesnt seem to be taking your bait, and neither does anybody else.
Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, Mike Flynn might appear! What do you think?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you respond to my comments?
Cheers.
Willard,
Your obsessive fixation on Mike Flynn seems to be getting the better of you.
Do you have any waking moments when you do not think of him? What about your dreams?
Mike Flynn doesnt seem to be taking your bait, and neither does anybody else.
Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, Mike Flynn might appear! What do you think?
Carry on obsessing.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you still deny being Mike Flynn?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Best to ignore what Monkey Man ignores –
https://tinyurl.com/climate-stability
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon has probably been in therapy for years. His problems are not small. Likely his therapist has encouraged him to blog aimlessly, even to fake being an engineer. He can live out his fake life here.
It’s all in an effort to keep Gordon from hurting himself….
Gordon Robertson,
You’ve made it personal. You use abusive language and attack me personally. You’ve decided that your free speech should be freer than mine.
Because you have no credentials you have bestowed a fictitious university degree on yourself hoping to gain instant gravitas. You lie pathologically in order to manipulate others.
The problem is that none of what you say ever progresses beyond the most basic and rudimentary levels of science or engineering.
An honest layman is much more credible. In today’s world, If you are genuinely interested in a subject, you have access to textbooks in any library anywhere in the world.
There is no need to confer a fictitious degree on yourself when you can get real knowledge by investing some of your, apparently abundant, free time.
And no, time spent reading blogs does not count towards a degree; real or imagined.
A,
Are trying to divert attention away from the fact that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE, or just trolling for effect?
What’s it to you whether someone else has opinions you think are wrong? Are you concerned that someone might not value your opinions as highly as you do?
You say “an honest layman is much more credible”. Honesty may have nothing to do with fact. You may honestly believe in a GHE, for example. Or that melting sea ice raises sea levels. Or that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist!
Every opinion you have ever had (plus $5) will get you a $5 cup of coffee. Why should I value your opinions more highly than the real world does?
You can’t even come up with a valid description of the GHE! Some arbiter of knowledge you are!
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to divert the attention from the fact that you are Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are trying to divert attention away from the fact that you cant even describe the mythical GHE, or just trolling for effect?
Every opinion you have ever had (plus $5) will get you a $5 cup of coffee. Why should I value your opinions more highly than the real world does?
You cant even come up with a valid description of the GHE! Some arbiter of knowledge you are!
Maybe somebody knows why you are so obsessed with people’s pseudonyms (or birth names, if it comes to that). I certainly don’t. Was Mike Flynn a pseudonym, or a real name? Why is it having such an effect on you?
Were you spurned by a lover named Mike Flynn? Was he really someone else?
Your obsession certainly provides amusement, sadly enough. It’s not good form to laugh at the pointless antics of the mentally afflicted, I suppose. My bad, as they say.
It obviously gives you purpose, and diverts attention away from your bizarre description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, so that’s something.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to divert the attention from the fact that you are Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”the Moon also keeps the same face pointed at Earth because it cannot rotate on its axis
Why?”
***
Regard the x-y plane as the lunar orbital plane. Consider it for simplicity to be a purely circular orbit. Now, draw a radial line from 0,0 though the Moon’s centre. The radial line has nothing to do with reality, it is simply a tool for us to visually track the lunar motion.
Through the lunar centre draw a tangential line to represent the lunar orbital motion at any instant. Of course, the tangential line is perpendicular to the radial line. Draw another tangential line where the radial line meets the near face. This represents the motion of the near side. Add another tangential line at the far side where the radial line emerges from it. That line indicated th instantaneous motion of the far side.
Now forget about the Moon and observe the radial line rotating with the three tangential lines. At each instant of the orbit, the near face, the far face, and the COG are all moving in parallel. That describes curvilinear motion without rotation.
Now consider a rotating Moon…or the Earth. At the instant it rotates even a fraction of a degree, the right angle it forms with the radial line must change. That’s because the Moon would need to rotate about a point on the radial line and it has to rotate about that point through 360 degrees per orbit.
We know from the Earth’s rotation that we alternately face the Sun and away from it 365 times per year. Even if the Earth rotated only once per orbit it would mean we would face the Sun for 180+ days and away from it the same length of time.
> draw a radial line
Mr. Asshat recalls a war story he lost years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-334012
When will Moon Dragon cranks offer us their explanation as to why the Moon has no angular momentum, in contrast to all celestial bodies known to mankind?
Weird Wee Willy,
Why do you write –
“When will Moon Dragon cranks offer us their explanation as to why the Moon has no angular momentum, in contrast to all celestial bodies known to mankind?”
Well, that’s a really stupid attempt at a gotcha, isn’t it?
Your gibberish generator spews out “Moon Dragon cranks”, just another pointless exercise in stringing words together. The angular momentum of the Moon in its orbit is about 2.89805e34 kg m^2/s. If you say it has no angular momentum, I presume that you have defined the Moon’s angular momentum out of existence – because you don’t like it!
Maybe you could whine about Mike Flynn some more? That will achieve about as much as your gotcha.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Its been five years since you tried to be funny using your real Climateball handle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
Do you really think you’re being funny?
Come on, Willard, you can whine better than that!
Maybe you could complain to Dr Spencer that Mike Flynn intended no offence.
Would that help people to ignore your silly description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling?. I couldn’t blame you for being a bit embarrassed about that.
Or are you just trying to troll? Do you think you could get yourself banned?
I doubt it – you are incompetent as well as impotent.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You are Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You are Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet.”
I’m pretty sure Mike Flynn is Mike Flynn, and Mike Flynn would admit he is Mike Flynn.
I’m not sure whether you telling Mike Flynn that he is Mike Flynn is a sign of superior mental acuity on your part. Are you worried that Mike Flynn is only pretending to be Mike Flynn, and is really someone else?
Let me know if you find out.
Mike Flynn,
You are indeed Mike Flynn –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-287342
Needless to say that your denial is just delicious.
Wonky Wee Willy,
I see you agree with Mike Flynn, so I’ll help you out by repeating what he said –
“Mike Flynn says:
February 16, 2018 at 7:31 PM
If nobody can actually produce a rigorous description of the GHE, then no testable GHE hypothesis can be proposed. The null hypothesis might be that a thing that cannot be properly describe can be assumed not to exist, until the contrary can be demonstrated by repeatable scientific experiment. Computer models and strident assertions are not experiments. Neither are endless reanalyses of past history.”
Your best effort at describing the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling” explains why you are so obsessed with Mike Flynn.
Carry on trying to divert the conversation away from the mythical GHE. Do you think you might be able to sway other fanatical GHE cultists into following you? Maybe you could get a petition going, demanding that I use the pseudonym “Mike Flynn.”
Go on, get 10,000 real signatures on such a petition, and I’ll do it! Or any ridiculous name you choose – Willard, Bindidon, Santa Claus – it won’t change the fact that the GHE doesn’t exist, and you will have wasted a lot of your time achieving nothing! As usual.
Get to it – not a moment to lose!
You really are an obsessed little donkey, aren’t you! Hee-haw!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I see you agree with Mike Flynn”
What are we agreeing about, that you are Mike Flynn?
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What are we agreeing about, that you are Mike Flynn?”
You quoted Mike Flynn –
“Mike Flynn says:
February 16, 2018 at 7:31 PM
If nobody can actually produce a rigorous description of the GHE, then no testable GHE hypothesis can be proposed. The null hypothesis might be that a thing that cannot be properly describe can be assumed not to exist, until the contrary can be demonstrated by repeatable scientific experiment. Computer models and strident assertions are not experiments. Neither are endless reanalyses of past history.”
I agree with what he said, and apparently so do you. You certainly haven’t voiced any disagreement, have you?
If you don’t agree with what Mike Flynn said, just say so. What are you scared of?
Come on, man up. Be proud – keep saying “the GHE is not cooling, it’s slower cooling!”. Demonstrate your cleverness – don’t be shy.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“You quoted Mike Flynn”
I actually quoted *you*, Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Are you seriously saying that you agree with –
“If nobody can actually produce a rigorous description of the GHE, then no testable GHE hypothesis can be proposed. The null hypothesis might be that a thing that cannot be properly describe can be assumed not to exist, until the contrary can be demonstrated by repeatable scientific experiment. Computer models and strident assertions are not experiments. Neither are endless reanalyses of past history.”?
Good for you! I didn’t realise that you accept that the GHE doesn’t exist, as it cannot be described in.such a way that would enable it to be supported by experiment!
Binny has changed his view of the GHE, and abandoned the involvement of CO2 in making thermometers hotter. What’s your view of CO2, given your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? Do you value Bindidon’s opinion, and now put this “slower cooling” down to water in its various forms?
At least you are agreeing with both myself and Mike Flynn that there is no “rigorous description” (Mike Flynn’s description – I probably use “valid”, but no matter) of the GHE.
Next thing you”ll be admitting that the Earth has actually cooled to its present temperature!
Mike Flynn,
The null hypothesis is that you’re Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The null hypothesis is that youre Mike Flynn.” Oh yes.
Like Kevin Trenberth saying that the null hypothesis relating to the GHE should be that the GHE exists! That went over well, didn’t it? About as well as Trenberth’s “missing heat” that he can’t find! Or his eminently silly “energy budget” – which shows all of the Earth’s surface illuminated at once, requiring a flat Earth!
Maybe you could pay the publishing fee and propose your “null hypothesis” be published.. You could use the same journals that have published nonsense from Berkeley Earth. Maybe you could get some other dim buffoon to provide the financial wherewithal.
You could include your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” in the same paper. It might cost you extra, but think of the applause for such an elegant description!
You are quite mad, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“Like Kevin Trenberth”
No, you’re not like Kevin Trenberth. He publishes papers and editorials, whereas you’re just a little sock puppet.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“The null hypothesis is that you’re Mike Flynn.” Oh yes.
Like Kevin Trenberth saying that the null hypothesis relating to the GHE should be that the GHE exists! That went over well, didnt it? About as well as Trenberths missing heat that he cant find! Or his eminently silly energy budget which shows all of the Earths surface illuminated at once, requiring a flat Earth!
Maybe you could pay the publishing fee and propose your “null hypothesis” be published.. You could use the same journals that have published nonsense from Berkeley Earth. Maybe you could get some other dim buffoon to provide the financial wherewithal.
You could include your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” in the same paper. It might cost you extra, but think of the applause for such an elegant description!
You are quite mad, arent you?
Mike Flynn,
The null hypothesis is that you are a sock puppet.
Cheers.
The really sad part is that wee willy completely fails to grasp what I said about the difference between angular momentum and the changing angle of a tangent line. None of his alarmist brethern can grasp that either.
Angular momentum of any body requires that the body be attached to an axis by a solid arm. The journal arms on a crankshaft, and the bearings, have angular momentum, meaning the momentum always acts in a circle. That cannot be claimed for a body like the Moon, because its momentum can act only along a straight line at any instant.
Newton pointed that out in Principia when he claimed the Moon moves with a linear motion and that motion is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
When I argued my point with Tim, I pointed out that a horizontal line drawn head to tail on the wooden horse would always change its angle as the merry go round rotated. For some reason, spinners take that as evidence the horse is rotating on a local axis, even though it is bolted to the floor of the MGR and unable to rotate locally.
> completely fails to grasp
Mr. Asshat goes for the mind probe.
Perhaps he could address what Tim told him a few years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-334019
After all, it’s only been 6 years!
“Mr. Asshat goes for the mind probe.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Somebody appointed themselves supreme analogical arbiter, and wrote –
“A better analogy would be a very GOOD bearing for the pole that only gradually slows the rotation of the horse relative to the platform.”
And the horse eventually stops, just a pendulum with the finest bearing does.
This sounds about as pointless as Tim Folkerts writing about the GHE “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface.””
And the surface keeps cooling, presumably until al matter in the universe is at the same temperature, and entropy is maximised.
Analogies – have to love them. The refuge of people who don’t understand what they are talking about sufficiently to explain it to others.
Mike Flynn,
Somebody here appointed themselves as a Mike Flynn denier.
That somebody is you.
Cheers.
tim does tend to offer colourful explanations, albeit wrong much of the time. His description of tidal locking is so fanciful as to be more amusing than factual.
Tim claims the Moon does not always keep the same face point toward us, a fanciful claim. He is obviously referencing libration, an anomaly related to the slightly elliptical nature of the orbit. However, the Moon does not rotate on it axis to produce libration, it is a problem of view angle related to orbital eccentricity and in the neighbourhood of 5 degrees.
The point is wee willy, why do you have to run off to authority figures for your replies? When Tim becomes an authority figure for you, it is an indication you are seriously lost.
“Somebody here appointed themselves as a Mike Flynn denier.”
Besides being completely irrelevant and pointless in regard to the mythical GHE, your gibberish makes no sense.
Either Mike Flynn exists, or he doesn’t. If he exists, how can that fact be denied by any rational person? If he doesn’t, how can something that doesn’t exist be denied?
Are you slowly becoming mired in your fantasy, to the point of rejection of reality?
Oh well, keep telling all and sundry that I really someone else, but denying it for some reason known only to you (that’s a bit of a pointer to your mental state) – and you are not going to tell anybody your closely guarded secret!
No wonder you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Madness.
Mr. Asshat,
The point here is that you did not address Tim’s comment, both at the time and now.
And for the nth time, libration is also a physical phenomenon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Physical_libration
“Mr. Asshat,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Tim claims the Moon does not always keep the same face point toward us, a fanciful claim. He is obviously referencing libration, an anomaly related to the slightly elliptical nature of the orbit. ”
So you are agreeing with my claim and yet calling it ‘fanciful’
Fascinating.
Tim, please stop trolling.
For some delicate flowers, anyone making a valid point with real facts that happens to disagree with their narrative, is called tro.lling.
…please stop trolling.
Here is the direct output of UAH 6.0’s 2.5 degree grid for LS (the lower troposphere), without any geometrical modification:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g6BR-gEOP3n4M_bi-k4z3w6C_SsZDlxn/view
{sarc} Between 60N and 82.5N, you see on the left HTE’s SO2 effect and on the right its H2O effect. {/sarc}
Ooops?!
” … for LS (the lower troposphere)… ”
should of course read
” … for LS (the lower stratosphere)… “
Another square shaped Earth which is almost as bad as a flat Earth.
Strop smalltalking and stalking, opinionated Blindsey H00d, and try to do the job yourself instead.
Here is the source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/
*
Did you see Bellman’s perfect work, Blindsley H00d?
https://imgur.com/UFWN3Bk
THAT is what you should have done since two years, instead of uselessly stalking me like a little ankle-biting dog.
I’m afraid however that we can wait long a time before seeing your job’s result.
“Strop smalltalking and stalking, opinionated Blindsey H00d,”
Bindidon,please stop trolling.
Last time I looked, UAH designated LT as lower troposphere. It would seem that Binny can’t tell the difference between LT = lower troposphere and LS = lower stratosphere. Perhaps that explains why his graphs fail to mimic those of UAH.
Robertson
” It would seem that Binny cant tell the difference between LT = lower troposphere and LS = lower stratosphere. ”
You are really the most ignorant guy on this blog.
Didn’t you see my correction?
Ooops?!
” … for LS (the lower troposphere)… ”
should of course read
” … for LS (the lower stratosphere)… ”
You are such an idot, not even able to accurately read a post together with its correction.
” Perhaps that explains why his graphs fail to mimic those of UAH. ”
You are too much a coward to ask the UAH team whether my graphs presenting their data are wrong.
“You are too much a coward . . . ”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Binny,
What has any of this to do with water in the atmosphere?
As you said –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.”
Have you changed your mind yet again? You might be aware that the areas with the least water (arid deserts) have the highest temperatures! So the less GHG the higher the temperature. Is that your description of the GHE, or did you really mean to say something else?
Are you sure that you know what you are trying to say? You keep caging your mind, and then claiming that you would never intentionally say that increased CO2 would raise temperatures, because that was nonsensical.
Maybe you could clear up the confusion. What do you think causes hotter thermometers? Water? CO2? Heat? It should be fairly easy to give an unambiguous reason.
Mike Flynn,
What has any of this to do with you being a sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…as an aside, Shula made an excellent point in his video interview. He claimed that WV increases the mass of air, increasing its heat capacity.
I imagine, the reason deserts are hotter is due to direct sunlight during the day. As you have pointed put, they tend to get cooler at night, especially at higher elevations. The Tibetan plateau is a desert and has some of the coldest temperatures on Earth due to its elevation.
It seems obvious that WV in the Tropics absorbs incoming solar, making the air warmer and helping to retain the heat at night.
Gordon,
I don’t know who Shula is, but if he said water vapour is denser than dessicated air, he’s wrong.
Here’s a quick snip from the internet “The density (mass/volume) of water vapor is 0.804g/litre, which is significantly less than that of dry air at 1.27g/litre at STP.” Agrees with my thoughts.
As Tyndall knew, water vapour prevents some IR wavelengths from reaching the surface, which accounts for the hottest temperatures being found in arid deserts. Tyndall also demonstrated that a thermometer on the ground shows increased (not decreased) temperature with altitude, as there is less water vapour between the Sun and the thermometer. Ceteris paribus.
The lowest temperatures are found on the Antarctic plateau for the same reason, but in reverse. Sunlight is unobstructed by water vapour, but is very weak, due to its angle of incidence, hence low surface temperatures to start with.. On the other hand, there is little obstruction to energy radiated from the surface. Even more pronounced at altitude in the virtual absence of sunlight. Gets down to about -90 C, I believe.
Basic physics in action – no GHE needed or involved.
swenson…”I dont know who Shula is, but if he said water vapour is denser than dessicated air, hes wrong.
Heres a quick snip from the internet The density (mass/volume) of water vapor is 0.804g/litre, which is significantly less than that of dry air at 1.27g/litre at STP. Agrees with my thoughts”.
***
Shula is the scientists who used the Pirani gauge to prove that conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient at dissipating heat than radiation.
The point is that when WV is mixed with air, the overall density increases. So, we have 0.804g/l added to 1.27 g/l. The mix is denser than either alone. Air density increases from 1.27 g/l to (1.27 g + 0.804g)/l = 2.074 g/l.
The point is that air with WV can hold more heat than dry air.
Gordo fails at math again. He wrote:
No, the equation should be:
Air density changes from 1.27 g/l to (1.27 g + 0.804g)/2l = 1.037 g/l. Adding water vapor to air reduces the density of the mixture.
From Wiki:
Gordon,
You wrote –
“The mix is denser than either alone.”
No it’s not. No, the mix is less dense than 1.27 gm/l. By the time you have replaced all the aire with water vapour, the density will have dropped to the density of 0.80 gm/l – it’s 100% water vapour now.
If Shula thinks otherwise, he’s mistaken.
Not to worry, still no GHE, is there?
ES,
You bring up an important point which is generally accepted as a rule, but is not a rule at all.
You quote –
“Also, a volume of moist air will rise or be buoyant if placed in a larger region of dry air.”
No it won’t, unless it is less dense, or if it is allowed to rise, and so on.
It also begs the question of how one “places” a volume of moist air within “a larger region of dry air”.
The rest of the Wiki quote is similarly misleading. Just saying things like “will be denser or heavier” is about as silly as saying that a pound of lead is denser or heavier than a pound of feathers – half true, and pointless.
Maybe you could demonstrate your knowledge of atmospheric physics by describing the GHE?
You could try quoting from Wikipedia, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
A pound of lead is indeed denser or heavier than a pound of feathers.
What are you braying about?
That’s what I’d expect a fanatical GHE cultist to say. Or some other of mentally afflicted person.
Mike Flynn,
Do you deny that a pound of lead is indeed denser or heavier than a pound of feathers by any chance?
It wouldn’t be the only thing you deny.
Silly sock puppet!
Thats what Id expect a fanatical GHE cultist to say. Or some other of mentally afflicted person.
Mike Flynn,
I’d expect a crank who doesn’t believe in predictions not to expect anything.
What are you braying about?
That’s what I’d expect a fanatical GHE cultist to say. Or some other of mentally afflicted person.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A word on angular momentum. It has been a long time since I studied this formally and I needed to review. As I pointed out with with rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation, one needs to looked at each motion independently. In other words, it’s very difficult to apply the analysis of rectilinear motion to curvilinear motion. Same thing with linear and angular momentum.
The reason is simple, curvilinear motion requires a different analysis than linear motion. With linear motion, one can simply consider a mass moving in a straight line, but with curvilinear motion, the same analysis won’t work other than for an instantaneous event. In other words, with curvilinear motion, the tangential motion of a body is true for only an instant, then the direction changes.
Although curvilinear motion can be calculated instant by instant, provided the motion is uniform, in practice, the angle a lever arm, or a radial line, makes with an axis is the basis of curvilinear motion. The change of angle and the rate of change of angle is the basis of curvilinear motion. So, when we talk about angular momentum, we are considering the angle a radial line through a mass makes with an axis and the rate of change of that angle with a coordinate axis.
That’s why I claim the Moon has no angular momentum and only a linear momentum. There is no mass, at any time, with a curvilinear velocity, there is only a mass with linear velocity acted on by a gravitational field that produces a slightly elliptical curvilinear orbit.
“I needed to review. ”
The last accurate statement in that post.
yes, Nate, but you lack the ability to understand what I said, never mind reply to it constructively.
Gordon,
When I point out, in detail, you don’t have a reply or answers, you just move on and come back and repeat the same nonsense again and again.
Lets verify that.
“The change of angle and the rate of change of angle is the basis of curvilinear motion. So, when we talk about angular momentum, we are considering the angle a radial line through a mass makes with an axis and the rate of change of that angle with a coordinate axis.”
Fine. “rate of change of angle” is simply angular velocity.
“Thats why I claim the Moon has no angular momentum and only a linear momentum. There is no mass, at any time, with a curvilinear velocity, there is only a mass with linear velocity acted on by a gravitational field that produces a slightly elliptical curvilinear orbit.”
Wrong wrong wrong. As you stated, the Moon has angular velocity, w.
And it has Mass, and a radius, thus moment of inertia, I.
Since angular momentum is I*w, the Moon clearly has angular momentum!
Gordon,
“you dont have a reply or answers”
QED
> as an aside
With Mr. Asshat, it’s asides all the way down.
“With Mr. Asshat, its asides all the way down.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
With Mr. Asshat, its asides all the way down.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Get out of my thread.
“Get out of my thread.”
Ooooh, so masterful! Pity you are so completely unable to make me obey your commands!
Maybe you should address your demands to someone who cowers in abject terror at your feet.
Only joking, you strongly resemble an impotent GHE cultist.
[laughs at fool]
Mike Flynn,
This way, please.
Get out of my thread.
“This way, please”
Ooooh, so masterful! Pity you are so completely unable to make me obey your commands!
Maybe you should address your demands to someone who cowers in abject terror at your feet.
Only joking, you strongly resemble an impotent GHE cultist.
[laughs at fool]
Mike Flynn,
You’re not going to pee on the rug again, will you?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Youre not going to pee on the rug again, will you?”
Is English your second language? When you attempt to be gratuitously offensive, the last thing you should want is your intended target to be laughing at your ineptitude.
I won’t bother explaining your grammatical mistake. If you prefer looking a bit semi-literate, that’s up to you. But you’re really just trying to troll, aren’t you?
I suppose if your best effort at describing the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, then you might as well troll.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR
Are you a nihilist by any chance?
Besides being a silly sock puppet, that is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Look at what you did again.
The rug tied the room so well together.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
another whine from Ark…
“Youve made it personal. You use abusive language and attack me personally. Youve decided that your free speech should be freer than mine.
Because you have no credentials you have bestowed a fictitious university degree on yourself hoping to gain instant gravitas. You lie pathologically in order to manipulate others”.
***
If you were offering a philosophical POV or talking about something that does not matter, I would likely not even respond. However, you come onto this blog, run by a scientist who obviously does not agree with your views, which are aimed at disenfranchising people from their democratic rights, while harming the poor, and that’s why I aggressively attack your propaganda.
As far as my credentials are concerned, they don’t matter a hoot. It is what I say that matters and you and other alarmists have failed to discredit anything I have said using science. So, you get hot under the collar because you can’t dispute my views.
It’s amazing that you’d question my understanding of physics and how I came about that knowledge. Do you seriously think that laymen, in general, acquire such knowledge with attending a university? It is possible but the average layman I have encountered has no in-depth understanding of physics.
I know one thing, you are definitely a layman in physics. You fail to grasp even the most fundamental physics taught at a university. Furthermore, you constantly draw on authority figures to express yourself. When you start talking real physics I will respond without the insults.
But save your breath. I have gone toe to toe with Ph.D. alarmists and they end up getting frustrated because they cannot respond to basic physics.
Best to just ignore Ark, Gordon.
Oh, I do ignore him. I cannot ignore the bs he spreads, however. I am replying on behalf of those who are interested in scientific truth.
C’mon, Mr. Asshat:
– Ark reveals his ignorance on the subject. Manages only an ad hom.
– ark pulls out the alarmist desperation manual.
– Ark defended the pseudo-science of WSPR
– Ark doesnt understand that Evolution and the Bible are both religions.
You’re not trying very hard.
“Cmon, Mr. Asshat:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mr. Asshat clearly does not ignore TYSON.
What are you braying about?
“Mr. Asshat clearly does not ignore TYSON.”
Are you completely mad?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
If I was completely mad, I would PSTer people using a forbidden word.
What are you braying about?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“If I was completely mad, . . . ”
Don’t you know? In that case, I’ll try to help. If someone claimed that the description of the GHE was “not cooling, slower cooling” (your description), couldn’t admit that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter one, and cannot provide any sensible reason for writing “Mike Flynn” hundreds of times, would you think that person was in complete control of their faculties?
If you don’t believe that you are completely mad, how mad do you think you are? What’s your evidence?
Here’s a test – do you believe that the GHE makes objects hotter, colder, or has no effect at all?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Don’t you know?”
Yes, I know that you’re a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating a banned word to PSTer me and other commenters.
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You’re trying to act dumb on purpose – again.
Again –
“If I was completely mad, . . . ”
Dont you know? In that case, Ill try to help. If someone claimed that the description of the GHE was not cooling, slower cooling (your description), couldnt admit that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter one, and cannot provide any sensible reason for writing Mike Flynn hundreds of times, would you think that person was in complete control of their faculties?
If you dont believe that you are completely mad, how mad do you think you are? Whats your evidence?
Heres a test do you believe that the GHE makes objects hotter, colder, or has no effect at all?
You dont even need to pretend to be dumb, do you?
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“Youre trying to act dumb on purpose”
Are you sure you did not read your own comment?
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Youre trying to act dumb on purpose again.
Again
“If I was completely mad, . . . ”
Dont you know? In that case, Ill try to help. If someone claimed that the description of the GHE was not cooling, slower cooling (your description), couldnt admit that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter one, and cannot provide any sensible reason for writing Mike Flynn hundreds of times, would you think that person was in complete control of their faculties?
If you dont believe that you are completely mad, how mad do you think you are? Whats your evidence?
Heres a test do you believe that the GHE makes objects hotter, colder, or has no effect at all?
You dont even need to pretend to be dumb, do you?
Mike Flynn,
You write –
“Again”
Again?
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Youre trying to act dumb on purpose again.
Again –
“If I was completely mad, . . .”
Don’t you know? In that case, I’ll try to help. If someone claimed that the description of the GHE was “not cooling, slower cooling” (your description), couldn’t admit that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter one, and cannot provide any sensible reason for writing Mike Flynn hundreds of times, would you think that person was in complete control of their faculties?
If you dont believe that you are completely mad, how mad do you think you are? What’s your evidence?
Here’s a test do you believe that the GHE makes objects hotter, colder, or has no effect at all?
You don’t even need to pretend to be dumb, do you?
Mike Flynn,
You keep braying the same things.
Are you completely mad?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
From a reply to Swenson earlier…
“The point is that when WV is mixed with air, the overall density increases. So, we have 0.804g/l added to 1.27 g/l. The mix is denser than either alone. Air density increases from 1.27 g/l to (1.27 g + 0.804g)/l = 2.074 g/l.
The point is that air with WV can hold more heat than dry air”.
***
This clarifies the effect of WV as a warming agent but it’s not the explanation offered by alarmists who think WV anywhere causes warming due an unexplained GHE.
It is clear that the warming effect is only significant in the Tropics where WV slightly increases the density of air. It has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect, the farther north/south you go, the less significant WV becomes.
swannie…”Adding water vapor to air reduces the density of the mixture”.
***
density = mass/unit volume. If you add more molecules to a volume of air it means the air has more atoms/molecules per unit volume therefore the air has a higher density.
Your wiki article is equally wrong. Dry air has a lower density than moist air. This is basic physics/chemistry. How could dry air with less molecules be less dense that air with WV molecules?
The basis of this argument is that WV molecules displace molecules like N2 ad O2. That stems back to Avogadro who claimed “equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules.”
I am calling bs on that because Avogadro had no way of proving that at the time he made the statement. If I have a container equaling a cubic foot, containing air, and I force WV into the volume, then the number of molecules must increase and the air density in the container must rise.
The Ideal gas Law, PV = nRT, can be rewritten as…
n/V = density = P/RT
That is the basis of the argument based on Avogadro’s principle. However, n and P are mutually dependent. So, if you increase the number of molecules, then P has to rise as well. So, increasing n in a unit volume must increase the density.
As I said, the misconception that wet air is less dense than dry air is based on a misunderstanding of Avogadro’s principle. I saw a video in which it is claimed that WV created in the atmosphere forces N2 and/or O2 out of a unit volume making the air less dense since the H2O molecule is lighter than either N2 or O2.
Poppycock!!! You can’t make air less dense by adding WV. You are adding more molecules to a fixed local volume and there is no way to force N2 or O2 molecules out of a local atmosphere.
More pseudo-science, and they teach that drivel to pilots. Anyone who has walked out into a night of high humidity can attest to how the moister air clings to you.
Gordo continues to display his usual ignorance of science, writing:
The obvious fact is that “adding more molecules” to a batch of air at a constant temperature will result in a larger volume for the resulting mix. 1 liter of “air” is roughly 0.79 liters of N2 and 0.21 liters of C2 plus trace gasses.
Of course, one can not add more water vapor to a batch of air at some temperature than it can “hold”, which is the definition of “dew point” temperature.
Sorry for the typo. The “C2” should have been “O2”.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
ps. If I force N2 and/or O2 out of a unit volume, the molecules must move to an adjacent volume, making it more dense. That would mean we have adjacent volumes that vary in air density.
Science is going to you know where in a handbasket.
Ever flown a glider in a thermal? You are riding a column of less dense air convecting upwards through denser air.
Ever flown a glider in a thermal? You are riding a column of less dense air convecting upwards through denser air.
Moist air is less dense than dry air.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
Further evidence.
You’ve seen the sort of sunny days with small fluffy stimulus clouds all floating at the same level. Each forms on top of a thermal which reaches the condensation level. The water vapour condenses, the air density of the rising air increases to match the surrounding air and convection stops.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
The death toll in Friday’s terror attack at a concert in Moscow now stands at 133.
On March 7 U.S. officials warned Russian officials that there was intelligence pointing to an impending terrorist attack by Islamic State-Khorasan (ISIS-K), the branch of the group based in Afghanistan, at a crowded venue in Moscow.
On March 19 Putin publicly dismissed the warnings calling them “outright blackmail” by the West and an attempt to “intimidate and destabilize our society.”
Why didn’t he act to prevent the attack? Maybe Putin thought he could turn it to good propagandist use. Or maybe he was too busy worrying about Ukraine. Or maybe it shows how little he values his own citizens’ lives.
In any event, Putin’s failure to act proves that propagandists eventually become victim of their own propaganda because they no longer respect or recognize the truth. A form of karma. Apropos: Climate – the movie – a hot mess.
Russia has a self-annihilating system of multilevel lying that they’re addicted to. Even if someone sees the light, they just cannot stop themselves. Everyone at every level lies to hide failures.
Publicly they all live in denial. By the time the top echelons find out that reality might not be what they thought, they have to lie about it too or it will weaken them both internally and publicly. That makes them addicted.
No information can be trusted.
Those who expose it are removed. Prigozhin exposed it and was removed, Surovikin protested it (not even publicly) and was removed. Strelkov (Girkin) exposed it and was imprisoned despite his legendary status.
The Russian army and leadership is convinced that lies give them advantages, confuse their opponents and prevent them from losing. In reality it’s their (slow) undoing.
Whatever Putin mumbles in his sleep, Biden finds typed out on his desk the next morning.
The U.S. prefer a slow crumbling of Russia.
An amazing number of sincere and honest Russian patriots in the Space force will love to take their families to Disneyland, have burgers and fries or go skiing in the Alps.
“In any event, Putins failure to act proves that propagandists eventually become victim of their own propaganda because they no longer respect or recognize the truth. A form of karma. Apropos: Climate the movie a hot mess.
Russia has a self-annihilating system of multilevel lying that theyre addicted to. Even if someone sees the light, they just cannot stop themselves. Everyone at every level lies to hide failures.”
Chernobyl highlighted for all in the Soviet Union this very same failure of their system.
It helped lead to Perestroika by Gorbachev which led to the end of the Soviet Union.
Interestingly Putin would like to regress back to the period before Chernobyl.
nate…”Russia has a self-annihilating system of multilevel lying that theyre addicted to”.
***
And we don’t in the West? Wake up, man. We are lied to every day, from politicians to the media.
Yeah, but, unlike them, we have many independent non-state-sponsored media outlets.
You can see how that is playing out right now, with Russian-state-media trying to pin the blame on Ukraine for this ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack.
And there is no other media there to offer an alternative narrative.
Putin is definitely a cult leader. Like any cultist, he can’t stand reality. It is just like the GHE cult. Not only do they deny reality, they even make things up to support their false beliefs — like passenger jets flying backward, or ice cubes boiling water.
The movie does a good job of explaining the corruption:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM&ab_channel=CLINTEL
Putin is old politician who has damaged his country, though recently re-elected, it’s doubtful he remain in office for much longer.
And same can said about US dem leadership.
Here we have Ark, a bumbler in basic science, trying to advise Putin on how he should deal with the vast problems in post-Stalinst Russia.
Do you have any idea what Putin is facing? He has strong under-world factions in the Oligarchs (Russian mafia), who would off him in a heart beat if he gets too far from their agenda. Then he has states like Georgia, teaming with fanatical Muslims.
We do much the same in the West. When Wall Street criminals brought down the US financially in the early 2000 era, rather than prosecuting them, Obama hired them to help him implement his economical plans. It’s a bit different in Russia, the Oligarchs are armed and organized.
Putin faces much the same problems that Mao faced in China. We can sit back in our relatively free world and criticize Mao as being barbaric for his purges, but when he was asked about them, unlike other dictators he asked, ‘What else could I do’?
We criticize Mao for purges but we fail to acknowledge the reforms he implemented in education and giving women equality. He tried agricultural reform but it was a mammoth task that failed. All in all, he took China out of the dark ages. The current mob seem bent on returning them to that era.
You answer that question, Ark. What else can Putin do? He was handed a country that had been decimated by Gorbachev and Yeltsin and betrayed by the West. We had a perfect opportunity to help Russia gradually convert to democracy and what did we do? We sent in capitalist pick-pockets like Bill Browder to fleece them. All we saw in Russia was a source of vast profits, we had no intention of helping them.
Gorbachev is highly regarded in the West and I think it is mainly because he talked the talk and never walked the walk. He did claim that Putin is a good person, who could have followed in the steps of the KGB, but rejected that in a pursuit of democracy.
Maybe his brand of democracy falls far short of our brand in the West but we are not dealing with major issues like he has in Russia.
I don’t know what to make of Putin since I know very little about him. However, I am all for encouraging the guy rather than imposing sanctions and threatening war at each opportunity. Trump gets that whereas most other leaders are followers who cannot think for themselves.
“I am all for encouraging the guy rather than imposing sanctions and threatening war at each opportunity. Trump gets that”
Yep, communists GOT THAT in the 1930s, with Stalin, and in the 1960s with Mao.
America Firsters GOT THAT in 1940, with Hitler.
Most others called these mad-men facilitators Useful Idi.ots.
Neville Chamberlin Got That in 1938.
CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere (~400 ppm).
One molecule CO2 per 2500 molecules of air (0,04% CO2, 21% O2 and 78% N2).
There is so little CO2 in atmosphere, it cannot cause any harm.
It cannot warm atmosphere.
Of course it cannot warm planet Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems CO2 should cause some warming. We don’t know how much or even how.
It said more CO2 will cause more water vapor, and that the increase of water vapor, would cause the most amount warming due to increasing CO2 levels.
It’s also said that more CO2, causing cooling, and I am quite doubtful about this.
It seems that claim more CO2 causes more water vapor, requires more focus as an issue.
gb,
You wrote –
“It seems CO2 should cause some warming”. It should be fairly easy to check. If you remove the CO2 from a sample of air as Professor John Tyndall (and others) did, presumably the temperature of the air should fall. Or conversely, adding CO2 to a sample of air should cause the temperature of the sample to rise.
On the other hand, Tyndall’s meticulous experiments showed that some gases like CO2 and H2O blocked more infrared than others, and this reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer. The thermometer temperature dropped as a result.
Many properties of CO2 have been established – density, atomic weight, molecular structure, specific heat, spectroscopic signature and so on.
No mention of warming properties. None at all. The GHE is a myth.
“On the other hand, Tyndalls meticulous experiments showed that some gases like CO2 and H2O blocked more infrared than others, and this reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer. The thermometer temperature dropped as a result.”
Very good Swenson. Now you just have to figure out that the downward solar radiation hitting the Earth is mainly in different wavelengths than the ones that CO2 and H20 block.
It thus mostly passes right through to the Earth.
While the upwelling IR radiation from the Earth toward space is mainly in the range of IR that can be blocked by CO2 and H2O.
I realize that this may lead you to an understanding of the GHE, and thus you will have to hit the brakes before learning any more!
Swenson: “Tyndall’s meticulous experiments showed … The thermometer temperature dropped as a result.”
Tyndall 1861: “On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose … amounting in the case of air to +5 degrees FAHR.”
Oh well. So much for Swenson’s credibility hitting a new all time low.
Argument from incredulity alert.
christos…I agree that CO2 is harmless as a warming agent. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation both agree that the warming factor in CO2 is about 0.06%.
Defence Strategy: The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania & NATO’s Eastern Flank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsdGJrpC5tA
Won’t do them any good against nuclear bombs.
The problem with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is the Draconian mentality of their governments. They have implemented a plan for marginalizing native Russians trapped in their countries. Until they begin respecting Russians and allowing them to live and let live, they will be in extreme danger from Russia.
A major problem in those countries as well as the Ukraine is major ignorance. They call themselves democracies but no one from a real democracy could endure life in them due to abject oppression.
“The problem with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is the Draconian mentality of their governments.”
Is there any country that doesn’t suffer due to the Draconian mentality of their government?
Surely not the US, and certainty not Canada.
But we live in the best of times, though not due to politicians.
Though I am not making a claim that any government at anytime nor any place, were better, rather it’s more a matter of the lack of change in such animals.
“They have implemented a plan for marginalizing native Russians trapped in their countries”
It seems politicians can do worse than that. Considering Russia might want them to serve in their military, being “trapped in another country”, could be counted by some, as a blessing.
“Until they begin respecting Russians and allowing them to live and let live, they will be in extreme danger from Russia.
Again Gordon, with these identical excuses, you could have been enabling Germany to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland!
“By volume, the dry air in Earths atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon.
A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Yet while these greenhouse gases make up just a tiny percentage of our atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earths radiant heat and keeping it from escaping into space, thereby warming our planet and contributing to Earths greenhouse effect.
The largest greenhouse gas by volume is actually the one most people tend to overlook: water vapor, whose concentration varies significantly depending on temperature. As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount of humidity in the atmosphere also goes up, further heating our planet in a vicious cycle.”
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
Whereas Venus has little water vapor, and accordingly lacks this “vicious cycle”. Ie:
Its gaseous envelope is composed of more than 96 percent carbon dioxide and 3.5 percent molecular nitrogen. Trace amounts of other gases are present, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, water vapour, argon, and helium.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Venus-planet/The-atmosphere
gb advocates: Yet while these greenhouse gases make up just a tiny percentage of our atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earth’s radiant heat and keeping it from escaping into space, thereby warming our planet and contributing to Earth’s greenhouse effect.
gb, it’s quiz time —
Scientifically what is wrong with that quote?
This has all been discussed numerous times. Let’s see if you’ve learned anything.
Well, water vapor is not such a tiny percent as .04%, and it dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases.
But water vapor and all greenhouse gases don’t much effect upon global temperature nor the greenhouse effect.
What controls Earth global temperature is our cold ocean- it’s coldness is why we in an ice age. If our ocean was 5 C rather than about 3.5 C, we wouldn’t be as cold.
If ocean was somehow colder, Earth would be colder.
But the ocean surface temperature is warm- much warmer than land average surface temperature and causes our global average temperature to be around 15 C.
What I mentioned and regard as interesting thought experiment, is what would result if the ocean was mixed so that instead of warm ocean surface, the the surface of the ocean temperature was 3.5 C.
This should result in average temperature of around 3.5 C rather than about 15 C. Until the sunlight warmed up the surface of ocean again [which could take many days]. Of course one could continue to mix the ocean, and it would take centuries to warm up.
Instead globally mixing the ocean, you could just mix the tropical ocean, and get a similar result. And doing this would shut down the tropical ocean heat engine. Or the tropical heat engine would stop warming the rest of the world- or eliminating most of Earth’s greenhouse effect.
You’re evading the question gb.
I’ll bold the blatant errors. Your job is to explain why they are errors:
Yet while these greenhouse gases make up just a tiny percentage of our atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earth’s radiant heat and keeping it from escaping into space, thereby warming our planet and contributing to Earths greenhouse effect.
What is scientifically wrong with the bolded text?
“they play major roles in trapping Earths radiant heat and keeping it from escaping into space, thereby warming our planet and contributing to Earths greenhouse effect.
What is scientifically wrong with the bolded text?”
The ocean mostly traps most of energy of the sun.
And ocean heat mostly keeps atmosphere warmer.
The 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter is also helpful in retaining some heat.
[[It’s easy to say ocean traps most of heat of sunlight as it covers 70% of the surface {and about 80% in tropics}, but if it was merely 50%, it still would trap most of the heating from the sunlight.]]
Sorry gb, but you’re still evading.
This is not about the oceans.
Last chance — What is scientifically wrong with the bolded text?
gb,
As Tyndall observed, being a keen mountaineer, the less water vapour in the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer, the hotter it gets. His laboratory experiments allowed him to explain the phenomenon, even though his belief in the involvement of the luminiferous ether turned out to be mistaken.
The simple observation that hottest surfaces on the planet (arid deserts) are characterised by a severe lack of H2O (the word “arid” is a clue) puts the lie to the claim that H2O in the atmosphere results in warming. Sunlight provides the heat, CO2 and H2O prevent some of that heat from reaching the ground. In total, the atmosphere blocks about 35% of the Sun’s energy.
Of course, clouds are mainly H2O, and the blocking effect is quite noticeable in bright sunlight. Much cooler in the cloud’s shadow.
Oh well, Im just pointing out what you probably already know. Sorry.
–Sorry gb, but youre still evading.
This is not about the oceans.
Last chance What is scientifically wrong with the bolded text?–
The radiant heat from the walls of a room, do not warm you, likewise a “barrier” of millions greenhouse molecules can not warm you.
gb,
You wrote –
“The radiant heat from the walls of a room, do not warm you, “.
That’s an exceptionally vague and possibly misleading statement. If your “room” happens to a freezer held to 255 K or so, even though the walls are emitting large amounts of radiation (compared to say, 0 K), then no, you won’t feel particularly “warm”.
If your room is the interior of a large pottery kiln, with walls glowing orange from the heat (about 1250 Kj, then you wont feel “warm” either – you’ll be dead.
What did you actually mean to say? The atmosphere obviously doesn’t “warm” the Earth, or even prevent it from cooling. Temperature drops at night – all the heat of the day is vanishing. All of it.
I’m not sure what you’re implying.
You’re finally on the right track, gb — “The radiant heat from the walls of a room, do not warm you, likewise a ‘barrier’ of millions greenhouse molecules can not warm you.”
But a slight correction. If the walls of a room are hotter than your body temperature, they CAN warm you. But, that’s not the case with CO2, which is not even able to warm ice. CO2 cannot warm Earth’s 288K surface. The GHE nonsense is a hoax.
So, why are you throwing crap against the wall, like your nonsense from Britannica?
“So, why are you throwing crap against the wall, like your nonsense from Britannica?”
I was going to follow it, with a post.
Which was going to be about Mars and Venus.
So it could been:
“By volume, the dry air in Earths atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon.”
Venus, “96 percent carbon dioxide and 3.5 percent molecular nitrogen. Trace amounts of other gases are present, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, water vapour, argon, and helium.”
And Mars:
“The atmosphere of Mars is the layer of gases surrounding Mars. It is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (95%), molecular nitrogen (2.85%), and argon (2%).”
Of course, Mars has more CO2 than Earth has {about 25 trillion tons],
but main point was going to be, that CO2 of Venus, doesn’t warm Venus.
But it didn’t get around to it.
But I could just ask a question.
If Venus was 95% nitrogen and 2.85% CO2 and:
“Trace amounts of other gases are present, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, water vapour, argon, and helium.
How warm would Venus be, if just switched the gases so it mostly nitrogen?
Because Mars is colder than the Earth it’s peak emission is 13 um, which is at the edge of CO2’s peak emission, whereas the Earth, at 15C, emits right in the middle (on average) of the CO2 absorp.tion band. Also, there is almost zero water vapour in the Martian atmosphere, and a very thin atmosphere compared to Earth’s (much less collisional energy transfer, too). These factors combined make a very weak greenhouse effect on Mars. Mars also receives less than half the wattage of sunlight that Earth does.
Earth has oceans that retain a lot of heat, while the rocky Martian surface gives up its heat much more readily to space. The presence of water on Earth in gas and liquid form has a significant moderating influence on energy transfer through the system, with the lion’s share of that activity being the retention of energy in the system. Frozen water has the opposite effect, reflecting sunlight away.
— Clint R says:
March 24, 2024 at 5:46 PM
Youre finally on the right track, gb The radiant heat from the walls of a room, do not warm you, likewise a barrier of millions greenhouse molecules can not warm you.
But a slight correction. If the walls of a room are hotter than your body temperature, they CAN warm you. —
Well sauna walls are warmer, but it’s the air which warms you.
Or if seat in lower area of the room, it’s not as warm as higher in the room, because hot air rises, and if ceiling is quite hot, it doesn’t make much difference.
So, a greenhouse doesn’t work due to radiant energy {it traps or prevents warmer air from leaving greenhouse. Same with parked car with windows rolled up.
Therefore a greenhouse effect on Earth likewise doesn’t have to do much with radiant energy.
Therefore the Earth ocean is important aspect related to Earth’s greenhouse effect.
“So, a greenhouse doesn’t work due to radiant energy {it traps or prevents warmer air from leaving greenhouse. Same with parked car with windows rolled up.
Therefore a greenhouse effect on Earth likewise doesnt have to do much with radiant energy.”
The atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect is a radiative function. Don’t be confused by the colloquial name.
gb…unfortunately, Britannica, a once proud bastion of truth, has been infiltrated by alarmist dweebs who have been inundated with pseudo-science.
The first lie is that a trace gas is responsible for ‘trapping Earth’s radiant heat’. That is a contradiction in terms, there being no such thing as radiant heat. Radiation and heat have nothing in common. At the instant the radiation (EM) is formed, the heat related to it is dissipated. It no longer exists.
The next lie is that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can trap enough radiation to convert it back to heat. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation both claim that the maximum heat the trace gas can produce is about 0.06% of the total heat created in the atmosphere. Besides, CO2 can ‘trap’ only about 7% of outgoing radiation, and that’s a calculation, not a measurement. I would reckon that the true amount is far less than 1%.
The third lie is that water vapour heats our planet in a ‘vicious cycle’. WV does add density to the Tropical air, enabling more warming than in the rest of the planet, and that heated air is transported poleward by winds. It is a very natural cycle that can in no way be affected by a trace gas.
The only truth, if they in fact claimed that, is the oceans warming the planet by trapping heat in them. I think that may be more your idea than theirs.
> there being no such thing as radiant heat.
Another one-liner to add to Mr. Asshat’s long list!
“Another one-liner to add to Mr. Asshats long list!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“unfortunately, Britannica, a once proud bastion of truth, has been infiltrated by alarmist dweebs who have been inundated with pseudo-science.”
What is an eyeroll time 100?
barry, please stop trolling.
swenson…”the mix is less dense than 1.27 gm/l. By the time you have replaced all the aire with water vapour…”
***
Help me with this brother, Swenson. I’m trying to challenge the myth.
That’s the propaganda being spread, that in a volume of air, WV molecules replace heavier molecules like N2 and O2. How can that happen in reality? I am challenging the theory.
They are not distinguishing between air mixed with WV in a standard proportion where WV is at max, about 3%, and a situation where there is so much WV that it overwhelms the air. In general, in the atmosphere as a whole, WV account for about 0.3%. In that proportion, WV is not displacing any N2/O2 molecules.
As I said before, if you have an air-tight container with nothing but air in it, and you force WV into the container, you increase the overall mass of air. Mass is the total number of molecules. There is no way to replace the N2/O2 molecules therefore the mass must increase. If the mass increases while the volume remains constant, then the density must increase beyond what it is in dry air.
Remember, when I stated the amount of WV density, it was for 100% WV. If you reduce that to 3%, as in the Tropics, it won’t affect air density much. It certainly will not reduce it.
Why should it be any different in the atmosphere? WV evapourates from the ocean and has to mix with drier air. How can WV molecules, at a max of 3%, possibly replace N2/O2 molecules? Where would the molcules go?
The atmosphere above the oceans is a constant volume and you are injecting H2O molecules into it. There is nowhere for the N2/O2 molecules to go.
To me, this is yet another bit of propaganda being spread like the Moon rotating exactly once on its axis per orbit.
“bit of propaganda being spread like the Moon rotating exactly once on its axis per orbit”
Not propaganda, fact.
Richard, old buddy. when you can come back to Earth and offer defense of your theory using real physics, then I will listen more closely. One liners and other blethering does not get the job done.
Your uncle was an intelligent electrical engineer, I am sure he would have had no problem writing a convincing argument. He would have been wearing a bag over his head in embarrassment over his nephew’s one-liners.
> when you can come back to Earth and offer defense of your theory using real physics
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
“Sammich Request.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That is real physics. Gravity acts on all particles.
Gordon,
Water evaporates into the air. If you have an enclosed container of dry air, and introduce a bowl of water, the water will evaporate until either the air reaches a point where it can absorb no more water, or all the water has become water vapour (gas).
The details get quit complicated, because no details of the heat sources keeping the water liquid are provided. Obviously, if the room temperature is below freezing, the water will freeze, and the air will absorb very little water (but still a tad – good scientific term, tad).
And yes, the density of H2O gas is less than dry air, but if it is well mixed, it won’t seperate out – any more than CO2 in the atmosphere settles to the bottom because it’s denser than air. Good thing, we’d all suffocate, otherwise.
The atmosphere is a jostling mix of gases, liquids, and solids in constant (Brownian) motion. When you breathe in oxygen, and exhale CO2, H2O, and a variety of other particles (garlic for example), these all enter the atmosphere, changing its average density just a tad, and displacing other molecules.
Here’s something that gbaikie might like to verify –
“there is a pretty good chance we breathe in about 4.3 10^9 molecules that Leonardo[ Da Vinci] breathed out.” – from New Scientist. There’s a good brimborion for you!
If you want to see H2O in action, watch a cumulonimbus forming in the tropics. Unstable atmosphere gets perturbed, rises, cools, H20 condenses, releases heat, overcompensating for the density increase when H2O gas shrank into liquid, and off it goes. Enough moisture, enough heat, insufficient upper air wind shears, and the cloud top can actually penetrate the tropopause – for a while.
No GHE involved of course.
It’s worth while reading the Appendix of this article titled…
“How did Climate Science get this so wrong?”
In that section, Shula goes to the atomic level t0 explain why conduction/convection is far more efficient at dissipating heat than radiation.
Shula has a degree in theoretical physics and should know what he’s talking about.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
Gordon,
Shula wrote –
“The Earth loses heat at a speed driven by convection in a process we call “weather.”
I disagree, of course. There is little to no convection at night, but the surface cools anyway, losing all the heat of the day. Faster where the atmosphere is clear, slower when it isn’t. The speed makes no difference. The surface still cools, whether fanatical GHE cultists think it should or not.
Shula also appears to have fooled himself by believing the assumption that the temperature of a body can be calculated by measuring the amount of radiation falling upon it. For example, calculate how hot an object gets when exposed to a measured intensity of sunlight. Say a cubic meter of air at 100 meters above the surface, a dark coloured rock, a light coloured rock, an outflow of liquid magma, a clear glass window, or a surface coated reflector pointed at the Sun!
Use as many physical laws as you like. You can’t do it.
He wrote “that is why the Earth is warmer than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.”
He has forgotten what the Stefan-Boltzmann law says.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is about emitted radiation, and its intensity being related to temperature. The Earth is as warm as it is – no more and no less. Glowing hot inside (more than 99% of its mass), and still cooling.
As Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
swenson…”Shula also appears to have fooled himself by believing the assumption that the temperature of a body can be calculated by measuring the amount of radiation falling upon it”.
The way I understood him is that S-B is a theoretical equation related to blackbodies, hence is only good in a vacuum. He did appear to make a mistake in claiming that a pure vacuum can only exist at 0K. However, he did not appear to be supporting the notion that S-B can accurately predict the temperature of a surface, rather he was dismissing the claim.
Maybe it wasn’t a mistake re 0K. It is an interesting question re vacuums and temperature. Since a pure vacuum has no molecules of air in it, the temperature should be 0 K. However, when you put something in a vacuum which is in a container at room temperature, I don’t think it will freeze solid.
If you put an ordinary mercury thermometer in a vacuum and shield it from radiation, what would it measure if the vacuum container was in an ambient environment of 20C?
Maybe Swannie could set up his vacuum device again and put a rugged mercury thermometer in it.
I think a solution to the vacuum issue is as follows. If a vacuum is in a container in a room at 20C, heat from the room penetrates the container walls and radiates toward a device in the vacuum, hence heating it. This does not represent a two-way transfer of heat, it is a simple one-way transfer from a hotter body, (walls of container) to a colder object within the container.
What would happen if you had a purely adiabatic condition where heat could not penetrate the walls of the container?
Gordon,
You wrote –
“What would happen if you had a purely adiabatic condition where heat could not penetrate the walls of the container?”
In a way, the universe is such a container. No energy leaves the universe, and none enters it.
Your “adiabatic condition” would be satisfied by a container with perfectly reflective walls. Nothing leaving, nothing entering. Eventually, all matter would be at the same temperature, and entropy would be maximised. The “heat death” of the contents. Presumably the universe will suffer a similar fate, according to some cosmologists. Others disagree.
Still no GHE, regardless of cosmological disagreements. I wonder if Willard thinks I’m funny?
I was just watching Shula again and he said…
“The concept of a greenhouse effect and radiative forcing as applied to climate only exists in the models and minds of those who believe in them”.
He offered a good mantra…”carbon phobia”.
Also, he explained that WV contains more ‘energy’ therefore moist air has more energy than dry air.
Note…it is my opinion that more energy implies more mass, therefore WV + air has more molecules per unit volume. It is simply not possible to displace N2/O2 with H2O molecules.
Shula…and, there are 10^28 molecules striking a one metre area per second. Each one of those molecules removes heat from a surface like the human body whereas photons of radiation are much less.
That’s the key. The number of photons removing heat is significantly lower than the number of air molecules doing the same. The Pirani gauge proves that. According to Shula, radiation is a minor player for heat dissipation in our climate system.
Climate science before the global warming idiocy
https://youtu.be/hsJOA7AAQgY
swenson…”Gordon,
I dont know who Shula is, but if he said water vapour is denser than dessicated air, hes wrong”.
***
Check out Shula in this video interview. Remember, he has a degree in theoretical physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
Gordon,
I generally can’t be bothered wasting my time watching videos. If he disagrees with the measurements of the density of gases which I provided, I would of course be interested in his sources, unless he can show results of his own similar experiments.
Many people have degrees in all sorts of fields. Kevin Trenberth, for example, has some sort of higher degree in meteorology. Recently, unable to actually describe the mythical GHE, he wrote –
“A greenhouse gas in the atmosphere absorbs and re-emits thermal (infrared) radiation and has a blanketing effect, as the emitted radiation is usually at a lower temperature than the Earths surface.”
He’s obviously either dim and ignorant, or being purposely misleading. All gases absorb and emit infrared radiation – otherwise they could not be heated by sunlight, nor cool at night.
At least he admits that the radiation emitted by the the atmosphere is “usually” (almost always?) colder than the surface, so its heating effect is precisely nil – unless known physical laws are ignored.
Kevin is no fan of reality, so he either ignores it, or rejects it out of hand!
If Shula doesnt want to accept relative density of various gases, that’s up to him.
Swenson…I can assure you, this one is well worth the watch. He is setting the GHE, AGW, and climate change on its ear.
Gordon,
Thanks, but no thanks.
There is no GHE.
If Shula agrees, good for him! Obviously a smart fellow.
I had time to watch the video. Unfortunately Shula makes the same mistakes as many Skeptics. He tries to accept some of the GHE nonsense so he can debunk the rest of it. That’s NOT the way to do it.
In the video, he starts with the bogus “Energy budget” diagram, which tries to treat flux as energy. That’s nonsense, so discussing it without debunking it, is also nonsense.
Instead of debunking the GHE nonsense, Shula tries to debunk the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. We see other would-be Skeptics doing the same thing. S/B is valid, the GHE is bogus. Shula also fails to use the correct definition of “heat” — another mistake of some Skeptics. His main point is that convection is much more effective than emission. But, he overlooks the importance of emissivity. A Pirani gauge uses a very low emissivity emitter, while Earth’s surface is high emissivity.
Maybe Shula just misspoke, but at about 38:22, he claimed that molecules are moving faster than the speed of light!
He may be an expert on the Pirani gauge, but he doesn’t understand the relevant physics. It’s somewhat like a race car driver that doesn’t know how to change the oil on his race car.
One example of this, is if you have a bucket of warm water, and pour liquid oxygen into it, the liquid oxygen will explode {rapidly become air {oxygen} at temperature of the warm water}.
Or you can use liquid nitrogen or liquid air and get warmed air quickly.
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Yes, I know that youre a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating a banned word . . . ”
Oh dear! A “banned word”. Presumably, a word that Willard doesn’t like.
Maybe the description of the GHE is made up of “banned words”, which is why Willard says the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, and somebody else said “the GHE is a stick of blankets”.
Obviously, Willard doesn’t like “scientific” words, and has banned them all! Words like “heating” or “physical laws”.
A cunning ploy!
Mike Flynn,
If Roy decided to ban a word, chances are it’s a word he doesn’t like. A word that has been abused, say by Graham D. Warner.
Nevertheless, vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
Willard,
You wrote –
Mike Flynn,
If Roy decided to ban a word, chances are its a word he doesnt like. A word that has been abused, say by Graham D. Warner.”
Oh yes, and “Roy” has provided you with a list of words he doesn’t like has he? For your approval, perhaps? This “Roy” must value your opinions highly.
Or are you just pretending familiarity with Dr Roy Spencer, trying to mislead people into thinking that you are helpfully representing your friend and colleague?
How does one “abuse” a word? Do you really mean you object to someone’s usage of that word? I might laugh at your attempt to be gratuitously offensive to Graham D Warner (whomever he is) by refusing to accept his chosen mode of address. Are you intentionally “abusing” someone’s preferences?
If you don’t like a word, don’t use it. If you want Dr Spencer to censor certain words, I suppose you could threaten him with dire consequences if he doesn’t bend to your will! It seems to me that Dr Spencer allows a pretty uncensored free-wheeling commenting policy. No facts are hurt in the process, so why not?
If you want to be a blog administrator, you could start your own blog, and censor away to your heart’s consent. Or just keep commenting here – as you wish.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“”Roy”.”
Why the scare quotes, silly sock puppet?
What are you babbling about?
I was quoting what you wrote. That is why I used quotation marks. If you don’t like it, tough. There is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Instead of asking stupid questions, maybe you could search for a better description of the GHE than your previous pathetic effort – “not cooling, slower cooling”! If are scared by me quoting you (using quotation marks), you could run to your mommy, and hide behind her skirts.
I’m only joking, of course. She’d probably box your ears, and tell you to stop your incessant whining. Or, to put it another way, she might say “Willard, stop your incessant whining!”
Are you also scared by “silly sock puppets”? Or clowns?
Diddums.
Mike Flynn,
You go for plausible deniability – “I was quoting what you wrote.”
Here’s what you actually said –
So you were “playing” dumb once again.
The t-word has been banned. To verify that, one only has to try to write a comment with the t-word in it.
We both know that you bypass Roy’s moderation by using an encoding trick.
You’re not very bright, are you?
What are you babbling about?
I was quoting what you wrote. That is why I used quotation marks. If you dont like it, tough. There is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Instead of asking stupid questions, maybe you could search for a better description of the GHE than your previous pathetic effort “not cooling, slower cooling! If are scared by me quoting you (using quotation marks), you could run to your mommy, and hide behind her skirts.
Im only joking, of course. Shed probably box your ears, and tell you to stop your incessant whining. Or, to put it another way, she might say “Willard, stop your incessant whining!”
Are you also scared by “silly sock puppets”? Or clowns?
If you are whining and complaining about what I write because you dont like it, it’s no use whining and complaining to me. I don’t value your opinion at all.
Have you thought of telling Dr Spencer to change my pseudonym, and then censor the person using that pseudonym? Be a man – why be devious and sly, acting like a scum-sucking Botton feeder?
I know, you enjoy being an object of derision and a laughing stock with delusions of grandeur. You keep trolling, and I’ll keep politely requesting you stop trolling.
You support freedom of expression, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You keep playing dumb.
Roy is the owner of this website.
Roy banned the t-word.
You keep using the t-word.
When are you going to act like an adult?
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Latest ENSO forecasts summaries.
BoM
“International climate models suggest the central tropical Pacific Ocean will continue to cool in the coming months, with four out of seven climate models indicating the central Pacific is likely to return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) levels by the end of April (i.e., neither El Niño nor La Niña), and all models indicating neutral in May. While three out of seven international models are predicting a La Niña by late [southern hemisphere] winter, El Niño and La Niña predictions made in early [southern hemisphere] autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with caution. ENSO forecasts have historically had their lowest skill for forecasts issued in April, with skill increasing from May.”
NOAA:
“A transition from El Niño to ENSO-neutral is likely by April-June 2024 (83% chance), with increasing odds of La Niña developing in June-August 2024 (62% chance).”
JMA:
“El Niño conditions are likely to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions during boreal spring (80%).
During boreal summer, it is more likely that ENSO-neutral conditions will continue (60%) than La Niña conditions will develop (40%).”
BCC (Beijing Climate Centre):
You can view forecast graphics for different NINO regions here.
So La Nina IS coming. Soon.
Coolistas must where glasses that only let cooling pass thru…
Are you saying that there will be no La Nina?
Are you saying you can’t read what people have posted?
I was asking for YOUR predictions.
When you read that the probability of an event is 60% or 40%, why would you say “So the event IS happening”?
RLH,
Saying “la Nina IS coming is meaningless.” At some point we will definitely get a la Nina. You might as well say in the nighttime, “the sun WILL rise!”
I posted forecasts from 4 different institutes that monitor ENSO. 2 predict a la Nina after the middle of the year, and 2 don’t.
Repeating an important bit of info:
“While three out of seven international models are predicting a La Niña by late [southern hemisphere] winter, El Niño and La Niña predictions made in early [southern hemisphere] autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current forecasts of the ENSO state beyond May should be used with caution. ENSO forecasts have historically had their lowest skill for forecasts issued in April, with skill increasing from May.””
barry, please stop trolling.
As predictions by climate science that have already been observed become more and more undeniable, Deniers are not going to say “Geez, I was wrong, and the science was right.”
Expect more of this…
Tennessee Senate passes bill based on “chemtrails” conspiracy theory. Nashville Tennessean. March 20, 2024.
What is the debunked Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory?
Editorial comment: It is good to “keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”
“𝐸𝒹𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉: 𝐼𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝓉𝑜 𝓀𝑒𝑒𝓅 𝒶𝓃 𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓃 𝓂𝒾𝓃𝒹, 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓈𝑜 𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒷𝓇𝒶𝒾𝓃𝓈 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝑜𝓊𝓉.
𝕙𝕦𝕘𝕖 𝕚𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕪 𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕣𝕥
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] Best to just ignore Ark, Mr. Asshat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Elephants are known for their large size, long trunk, tusks, and distinctive ear shape. They are herbivores that feed mainly on vegetation such as grasses, leaves, bark, and fruits. Elephants are highly intelligent and social animals.
Yes Willard,
walterrh03’s a good organ grinder’s monkey. Reminds of a song from my youth…
A,
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
Monkey Man,
Adolescents are known for not having the frontal lobe fully mature. Below 30, the human brain has been implicated in reckless behavior and social akwardness. Cognition is hampered by impulsivity and a strong impulse to challenge authority.
Some express their frustration by playing video games, especially Kombat.
It varies greatly among individuals regardless of age. Some adolescents demonstrate high levels of maturity and responsibility; higher than some adults.
W,
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Have you found another way to play dumb?
Looks like it!
W,
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is likely to play an important role in psychopathy. In particular, the ventromedial and anterior cingulate sectors of PFC are theorized to mediate a number of social an
What are you braying about?
Walter seems ok with government passing legislation based on debunked conspiracy theories rather than science.
Ok.
You seem ok with presenting unsupported claims of mind-reading as fact.
OK!
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
Yes, many times.
You are getting close to discovering it here..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653966
The smooth surface planets and moons (Earth included), the strong specular reflection in planet radiative balance is neglected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, that’s wrong Christos 7:13 am.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“No, thats wrong Christos 7:13 am.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So we have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No need for a correction to the Te measurements Christos, YOU are wrong, specular reflection is not neglected since the instruments do not wear polarized sunglasses.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“No need for a correction to the Te measurements Christos, YOU are wrong, specular reflection is not neglected since the instruments do not wear polarized sunglasses.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is a DETERMINISTIC relationship between the planet spin (N), the planet average surface specific heat (cp)and the satellite measured planet average surface temperature (Tsat).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now that sounds like something that could be tested in the lab using fairly straightforward equipment. Know any postgrads in the University of Athens Physics department?
Entropic Man,
What you suggest is completely valid, and probably completely back to front.
With respect, as Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” I agree, which makes Einstein a clever chap.
One reproducible experiment is all you need to prove Christos’ hypothesis wrong, if you are correct.
Are you interested enough to spend your own time and money?
Mike Flynn,
Validity is a matter of logic, not of experience.
What are you braying about?
Thank you, Ent, for your response,
“Now that sounds like something that could be tested in the lab using fairly straightforward equipment. Know any postgrads in the University of Athens Physics department?”
Isn’t it obvious?
“There is a DETERMINISTIC relationship between the planet spin (N), the planet average surface specific heat (cp) and the satellite measured planet average surface temperature (Tsat).”
Isn’t it obvious, there is a DETERMINISTIC relationship?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From Wikipedia.
“Rotisserie chicken is a chicken dish that is cooked on a rotisserie by using direct heat in which the chicken is placed next to the heat source.[1]
Electric- or gas-powered heating elements may be used by using adjustable infrared heat.[2] These types of rotisseries have proven quite functional for cooking rotisserie-style chicken.[3]”
–
The main component (except of heating elements) is the rotation.
–
As I said above, there is a DETERMINISTIC relationship between (N), (cp) and the average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But it doesn’t work.
As we discussed earlier, your theory is claiming that Earth can maintain 288K while absorbing 84W/m2 and emitting 240W/m^2
Ent,
“As we discussed earlier, your theory is claiming that Earth can maintain 288K while absorbing 84W/m2 and emitting 240W/m^2”
–
I never said that.
My theory says Earth SW not reflected is 444 W/m^2, and Earth IR emitted is also 444 W/m^2.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still not right.
Insolation, as calculated from satellite data is 1360/4=340W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere before albedo is subtracted. That is well below your predicted 444W/m^2.
Outward longwave radiation is measured and calculated from satellite data as 240W/m^2. That is also well below your predicted value of 444W/m^2.
Nobody but a few deniers will take you seriously until your predictions get a lot closer to observations.
False, and interestingly, you have conspicuously ignored the evidence to the contrary, Christos.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653943
Nate,
You wrote –
“False, and interestingly, you have conspicuously ignored the evidence to the contrary, Christos.”
– without producing any evidence, of course.
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet? I can’t see any evidence that you have.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“without producing any evidence, of course”
How would you produce evidence that Christos conspicuously ignored the evidence to the contrary?
Cheers.
Wee Willy Winky,
You wrote –
“How would you produce evidence that Christos conspicuously ignored the evidence to the contrary?”
What sort of a stupid gotcha is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
[laughing at confused GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“You wrote”
Shouldn’t you quote everything I said to prove what I didn’t say?
Cheers.
Wee Willy Winky,
You wrote
“How would you produce evidence that Christos conspicuously ignored the evidence to the contrary?”
What sort of a stupid gotcha is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
[laughing even more at confused GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
You wrote.
How should you proceed to prove what I never wrote?
Silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Boeing management stepping down!
They destroyed the company’s excellent safety record, going from engineer driven to accounting run.
Let this be a return to American manufacturing excellence.
Let The Engineers Lead: America Needs Boeing To Be Great
When they started the economical, profit increasing trip of cutting the number of engines on aircraft, one could sense the demise coming.
The disaster of the US airliner that went down as it left New York and approached the Atlantic Ocean occurred because some cheapskate engineers had used cheap wiring with inadequate temperature and insulation ratings and ran it too close to an air conditioner vent.
Other horror shows…
-an Alaskan airline flight nearly flew into a mountain because a device designed to determine such altitude hazards had failed. Fortunately a copilot noted the reason they had lost communication with a base since a mountain was in the way.
-I read recently that another jet airliner ran into trouble when the controls operating the ailerons failed. No mechanical means had been provided to override the electronics.
Much of the safety designed for aircraft comes after the fact. When an airliner crashes and people are killed, major investigations prompt change. That seems to be the engineering mentality, let a people die and we’ll find out what’s wrong.
As far as I am concerned two motors on overseas flights is not enough. And as one pilot commented, the current protocol is wrong. They have computers running planes with pilots monitoring the computers when it should be the other way around. It’s tough for pilots to remain awake on long-haul flights when a computer is flying the plane.
Extraordinary Climate Events of 2022-24
by Javier Vins
The unlikely volcano, the warmest year, and the collapse of the polar vortex.
The climate events of 2022-24 have been were truly extraordinary. From an unlikely undersea volcanic eruption to the warmest year on record to the collapse of the polar vortex after three sudden stratospheric warming events. This rare convergence presents a unique learning opportunity for climatologists and climate aficionados alike, offering insights into a climate event that may not be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/25/the-extraordinary-climate-events-of-2022-24/
With regard to the warmest year on record, they must mean the warmest year since alarists dropped the warmest year in the 1930s from the record books. These days, you have to search for the footnotes, usually hidden from plain view, to see what their baselines might be.
TOBS was introduced in an effort to correct for time-of-observation bias. But the issue with the methodology is that it oversimplifies the nature of weather observation. No person could consistently keep to a perfect hourly time schedule (12:00-1:00 PM). Also, the fact that during each data collection process, the observer’s diligence, mood, and overall cognizance will impact the recording each time and in a different way. The adjustment is just spreading uncertainty around.
Before 1950, there wasn’t good global coverage. Outside of the U.S. during that time period, there isn’t a distinct 1930s period peak, maybe due to the limited sample of stations. Even in the U.S., the temperature network is volunteer-based (Cooperative Observer Network); volunteer-based networks, being more leisurely and independent in nature, have far more uncertainty than a standardized one.
“With regard to the warmest year on record, they must mean the warmest year since alarists dropped the warmest year in the 1930s from the record books.”
How can you forever get things completely wrong? There was never a year in the 1930s that was the warmest globally. You are referring to US temps. But you’re not alone, this one trips up ‘skeptics’ all the time. Because 13 years a ‘skeptic’ blogged the mistake, and ‘skeptics’ ever since have regurgitated the error.
Triple facepalm.
barry, please stop trolling.
This is fun.
The cold saline water from the Gulf stream sinks in the Greenland Sea in spirals like water flowing down plugholes.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL017983
EM,
Ah, but where does it sink to? Through a giant plughole to the centre of the Earth?
And then where does it come out?
I don’t believe there is a giant plughole. Does the paper mention a giant plughole, or are you just making stuff up, trying to appear intelligent?
Have you managed to find a valid description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
You’re no fun, Mike. Don’t you find the idea cool?
It sinks to the sea floor and then flows South through the Denmark Strait. It then flows around the world in a network of currents known as the the thermohaline circulation. After about 1000 years it then returns to the Gulf Stream.
The sinking dense saline water off Greenland acts as the pump for the entire circulation.
Swenson can’t possibly understand anything that complicated. So he will simply deny it.
rlh…”That is real physics. Gravity acts on all particles”.
***
That’s a good start Richard, we both agree on that. Now let’s see if we can pry more information out of you as to how the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Newton stated in Principia that the moon has a linear motion that is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. That’s my appeal to authority, even though I already knew that from doing countless physics problems for engineering classes. I just thought you might need a better source than me.
The Moon is moving with a linear velocity/momentum, as do all bodies moving along a curve. Water in a bucket being swung in an orbit has only linear momentum, and follows the orbit only because it is constrained in a bucket. A car orbiting a track does the same and is held to the surface of the track by the rubber in its tires. If the traction fails, the car veers off the curved section in a tangential direction while spinning out of control about its COG.
If we look at the car, it always keeps the same side pointed at the centre of the track. That is curvilinear translation. In order that the car rotate about its COG, an action aptly called ‘spinning out’, the tires have to lose their grip on the track.
Over to you, how does the Moon keep the same face pointed at the Earth while performing the same motion as the car on the track. The only difference is that the friction of rubber tires keep the car on the track and gravitational force couple with lunar momentum keeps the Moon in its orbital track. Both perform curvilinear motion without local rotation.
If you have proof to the contrary, I’d like to heat it. This is not intended as an ego trip, it is meant only as an investigation of science. If you prove me wrong, I will gladly acknowledge it.
“If you prove me wrong, I will gladly acknowledge it.”
Some chance.
Re-thiking my claim that moist air is more dense than dry air, I wondered where the idea came from that the opposite is true. I wondered where it might be true.
If you have water boiling in a pot at 100C and copious amounts of WV are being evapourated, then in the vicinity of the pot top, it is conceivable that the number of water molecules are nearing 100%, enough to displace a significant amount of air molecules, making the air in that region less dense. However, we already know that heated air is less dense than unheated air.
That is hardly the case in the Tropics, where WV is most highly concentrated at about 3% of atmospheric gases. There is simply no way that concentration of WV could displace enough N2/O2 molecules to make the moist air less dense than the dry air.
As one moves polewards, it becomes even less true, as WV becomes significantly less.
It seems to me the people who come up with these ideas fail to grasp the vast number of air molecules compared to the pithy number of WV molecules. There is simply no way, in a gas like the atmosphere, that WV, at a maximum of 3%, can displace enough major air molecules like N2 and O2 to make the moist air less dense. In fact, adding WV molecules to dry air has to make the air more dense.
Besides, no one has answered the question as to where the N2/O2 molecules go. If they go into an adjacent volume they make it far more dense. As I stated earlier, unless you have a significant number of WV molecules, like from boiling water close to the source, where the WV is likely close to 100%, there’s no way WV can displace N2/O2 molecules to change the density.
That’s my story and I am sticking to it.
Gordon,
Maybe you have been in a lift where somebody released a particularly noxious fart. The expelled gases (hopefully not too many solids) managed to displace the N2 and O2, and diffuse within the contained space to make you look around accusingly.
Gases and liquids diffuse. The atmosphere is unconstrained vertically, and even laterally if an area of lower pressure is adjacent. Be that as it may, the CO2 you exhale finds its way into the air, as does smoke, asbestos particles from brake linings, various carcinogens, and all sorts of other things.
Wander into a cathedral with rays of light coming through the windows, and you will see a never ending display of particulate matter held aloft by Brownian motion. Even nanoparticles of gold (a relatively dense metal) will never settle out of the atmosphere while it remains gaseous.
A less dense gas like H20 or helium just diffuses into the atmosphere, like a fart in a lift. It just keeps dispersing, if left to itself, until some other process intervenes.
Maybe some GHE cultist might like to jump in and explain the role of Brownian motion in their mythical GHE. They probably can’t even explain why deserts are dry, much less why they can get so hot in the absence of H2O!
“Gases and liquids diffuse”.
***
That’s my point. If gases diffuse in a unit volume, the density must increase. I am not talking about air over water, where evapouration is dependent on gas pressure, I am talking about two gases mixing. If you add WV as a gas to another gas, in a unit volume, the density must increase.
The counter-argument is based on Avogadro’s theory that only so many molecules can inhabit a space. Avogadro knew nothing about the mechanics of atoms and molecules in a gas, and apparently those trying to confirm the number have not done so. Therefore, basing an argument of density on a theoretical number is no a scientific basis for claiming that adding molecules to a gas lowers the density.
The reasoning is actually ludicrous. It is presumed, based on Avogadro’s number that when WV molecules are added to a volume that heavier molecules must be displaced. Therefore, the displaced heavier molecules by lighter molecules adds up to a lower density.
We know that a CO2 concentration of 400 ppmv translates to 1 CO2 molecule per 2500 molecules of N2 and O2. We need to know the total number of molecules of air to which that is compared. Obviously, 400 ppmv means we are comparing CO2 to a million parts. Since N2 + O2 is about 99%, those gases must make up 99% of a million, which is about 990,000 ppmv.
That is a theoretical number, not a proved fact.
If WV at max is 3% then it must make up 3% of a million = 30,000 ppmv. If you divide 990,000 by 400 you get 2475, close to 2500. That means for every 2500 molecule of N2 and 02 there is 1 CO2 molecule. For WV at 3% = 30,000 ppmv we get 990,000/33.000 = 30 molecules of N2/O2 for every WV molecule.
That is in the Tropics only, closer to the Equator than not.
Is someone going to tell me that a molecule out-numbered 30:1 can displace enough N2 and O2 molecules to make the gas less dense? If so, where do the displaced molecules go?
But 3% is not typical of WV density. It is actually 0.3 % for the entire atmosphere. and it varies significantly from the Equator to the Poles, and summer to winter. Given the 0.3% figure, we have 3000 ppmv, and that translates to 330 N2 and O2 molecules for every WV molecule.
It’s obvious that WV has a significantly greater effect on the atmosphere than CO2…in the Tropics…but it’s equally obvious that it cannot displace N2 and O2 molecules in a volume like the atmosphere.
re farts..I was on a site many years ago when the guys were trying to outdo each other as to who could blow one the hardest. One guy, an otherwise mild-mannered nice guy, had one foot up on a desk and strained away till he lit one, just as a woman walked in the door. He felt so utterly embarrassed and there were no rocks under which he could crawl.
I have been lucky not to get a whiff of one in a crowded elevator. However, on one occasion, when I was younger and much fitter, I got on an elevator full of telephone operators. Part way down the ride, one of them goosed me. When I turned around to see who it was, it was an older women I’d guess to be in her 60s. I took it well and all the girls had a good giggle.
Later, our construction crew invited the operators to a local nightclub and many of them turned up. My experience in the elevator with a few of them broke the ice for me and I had a great time with them.
Another guy was quite comical. You may have seen men adjusting their shirts and tucking them into their pants. Some went so far as to undo their belts, unzip their flys, to do it more efficiently. This guy outdid them all. He’d undo his belt, unzip his fly and drop his drawers right to the floor, no matter how many guys were standing around. Then he’d non-chalantly tidy up his shirt, reach down, pull up his drawers, zip his fly and tighten his belt. Never failed to get us all roaring. Unfortunately, no women appeared when he was standing there with his drawers around his ankles.
Nate,
Responding to your comment: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1649310
To understand the causes, we have to get as much detail as we can. We can’t afford to lose any more detail than we already have. Temperature averages exhibit multi-modal distribution; as such, variance will increase the more you average. Gordon Robertson and Swenson understand what I am talking about. As Bindidon points out, the USCRN data itself is calculated from averages, but something is better than nothing.
If you want to see the impact of the meandering jet stream or how drought is being exacerbated in certain regions, for example, you want to analyze afternoon temperatures during the summer.
There are many important things that the global temperature is hiding. For example, last summer when Antarctica had record low sea ice extent due to Hunga Tonga’s impact on the ozone layer in the South Pole. It leads to intellectually lazy explanations for the recent temperature spike; for example, when people say it is only due to ENSO and global warming.
“Temperature averages exhibit multi-modal distribution; as such, variance will increase the more you average. Gordon Robertson and Swenson understand what I am talking about.”
You’ll have to show me data that exhibits this, because this makes absolutely no sense to me.
Look up the Central Limit Theorem. It states that averaging many non-Gaussian variables produces a Gaussian.
If clueless Gordon and Swenson ‘understand’ something that others don’t, that means it is very likely nonsense.
Data: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KqU1XmDeeV6yZWUWjCrpCh-lsK5LhZAUVCI07bOOZwE/edit?usp=share_link
You’re getting a numerical normal distribution, but you are losing the signal.
What am i supposed to be seeing?
Multi-modal distribution
I collected climatological data representing the same average (30.5F) over approximately 26 years at a weather station close to me. Some days had extensive snow cover present, some featured rain, blizzards, and others were just dry and warm with temperatures in the low 40s, etc.
*climatological day* data
A good point to make is that defining the climatological day by averaging two numbers is questionable. I’m also critical of how they report precipitation as a total sum for a day; for example, wouldn’t it be more informative to know if it rained an inch over a span of a couple of hours? A total sum for the day is vague and doesn’t specify that; as a result, we can’t know whether precipitation is getting heavier, wetter, etc.
Ok so you are looking at daily weather, in one location over a long time.
On for example, Accuweather, you can look at the Normal high and low for any location. That is an average over say last 30 years.
One can then see if the location has been warming.
So in my neck of the woods in New England, there has been a notable warming, and significant snow storms have become a thing of the past. Everyone has noticed that.
“The central limit theorem says that the sampling distribution of the mean will always be normally distributed, as long as the sample size is large enough”
Notice the word ‘mean’.
And?
There are other ‘averages’.
And?
CLT does not apply directly to them. See above.
Yes it does. Read your own description of the CLT.
I gather Walter is talking about what happens when one averages temperatures with cyclic-like behaviors which do not produce normal distributions. What he seems to be missing is that, for the purpose of quantifying warming trends, climatologists use temperature anomalies which have different statistical properties than do temperatures or temperature averages.
A while back I looked at hourly temperature data for a number of USCRN stations including the example linked below. This is the USCRN station near Ithaca, NY. In the upper left is a heat map of the hourly temperature showing the diurnal variation along the Y-axis and the annual variation along the X-axis. There clearly are diurnal and annual cycles in this view. The distribution in the lower left thus has multiple peaks and isn’t anywhere near Gaussian.
In the upper right is an hourly temperature anomaly heat map that was generated by taking the hourly temperature and subtracting a baseline expectation temperature. The baseline was calculated as the fundamental plus two harmonics of the daily and the annual interval, that is the best fit of a sum of sines for periods of 24 hours, 12 hours, 6 hours, 365.25 days, 365.25/2 days, and 365.25/4 days.
The probability distribution of the anomalies thus generated are reasonably close to symmetrical and Gaussian as shown in the bottom right plot.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnIthacaAnomalyByFFT.png
.
Yeah, of course.
The distribution of T in the winter has one peak, and the distribution in the summer has another peak.
Of it interest for climate change is the change over time of each season’s temperature distribution. IOW the seasonally adjusted temperature change. Daily anomaly works.
clint…”In the video, he [Shula} starts with the bogus Energy budget diagram, which tries to treat flux as energy. Thats nonsense, so discussing it without debunking it, is also nonsense”.
***
He told us why he used the diagram. They claimed radiation is the prime dissipator of heat at the surface while conduction/convection is a minor player. He pointed it out because he had proof that the opposite is true.
—
“Instead of debunking the GHE nonsense, Shula tries to debunk the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. We see other would-be Skeptics doing the same thing. S/B is valid, the GHE is bogus”.
***
Shula points out that S-B applies to black bodies and is only valid in the 0 K atmosphere of a vacuum.
We need to distinguish between S-B1 and S-B2. S-B1 was actually S1 since it was derived by Stefan himself without Boltzmann. Stefan based S1 on an experiment performed by Tyndall in which the latter heated a platinum filament electrically between the temperatures of about 500C and 1500C, noting the change in colour of the filament at each temperature. Later, another scientist associated the colours with the actual EM intensity produced, from which Stefan derived the T^4 relationship..
Therefore, S-B1 was based on actuality and contained no reference to w/m^2 since no such measure was made or implied. The experiment applied only in that temperature range of 500C to 1500C, therefore the T4 relationship applied only in that region.
Enter the nutjob Boltzmann, a student of Stefan. He began dabbling in the supernatural region of applying statistics to atomic theory and arrived at some cockamamey statistical relationship between math and physics. He was trying to prove the 2nd law and entropy statistically, and when he failed, in a fit of depression, he took his own life.
Of course, science being the flaky discipline it can be at times, adopted the looney Boltzmann redefinition of the 2nd law and entropy while discarding the original definitions of both by Clausius. And Klint, being the looney he is, fell right in step with the other looneys.
Shula is right, the application of S-B outside the temperature range of 500C to 1500C is sheer loonacy.
—
“Shula also fails to use the correct definition of heat another mistake of some Skeptics. His main point is that convection is much more effective than emission. But, he overlooks the importance of emissivity. A Pirani gauge uses a very low emissivity emitter, while Earths surface is high emissivity”.
***
Klint tries to pawn off his pseudo-science re heat and emissivity to make more of an ijit of himself than he has already done. Klint Klown defines heat as a transfer of energy, a new age, ijiotic definition that flies in the face of experience and science.
I have asked Mr. Klown to explain what kind of energy is being transferred by his definition of heat and thus far he has been unable to respond. His buddy, Ball4 thinks along the same lines and he will not offer an explanation either.
The generic energy both claim, in lieu of heat, is inadequate. Energy is undefinable and can only be observed based on its effect on mass. Heat has been traditionally defined as the energy of atoms in motion. When heat is added to a solid, the atoms vibrate harder. Mechanical energy is defined based on the motion of entire masses. Electrical energy is defined based on electrical potentials and the electrons those potentials can move through a conductor.
There is no definition or category for a generic energy that is allegedly being transferred as a phenomenon called heat. Such a theory is surely the product of limited intelligence.
With regard to the Pirani gauge, its operation has nothing to do with emissivity. The basis of its operation is the temperature of the filament. It is monitored using a Wheatstone bridge, and electrical bridge in which a meter between bridge legs will be zero if currents through the bridge legs are equal.
It is well-known that a resistance will change its resistance when heated or cooled. If the Pirani gauge filament is one leg in the bridge, one can monitor the null reading on the meter to determine if temperature has changed. If it drops, then the amount of current required to return it to the null position will indicate the power loss at the filament.
By using the gauge with the filament in a vacuum, one can tell how much heat loss is due to radiation. Emissivity has nothing to do with this since the we are simply interested in the total power loss. A lower or higher emissivity will not affect that amount since over time the power loss will be the same.
When the vacuum is filled with gas, the power loss is recalculated and it is found that the gas dissipates heat on the filament 260 times more efficiently than radiation alone.
There will be a point on the spectrum where power dissipation is equal between the two but one would need to go to 200,000 km altitude into the atmosphere to find that point.
Gordon, you should have learned by now that insults and false accusations phase me not. I brush them off as childish desperation. All of your disjointed, rambling blah-blah only indicates how little you understand the science here.
Please stop clogging the blog, and get professional help.
You can brush them off all you want, the point is you have no comeback. Your understanding of science is seriously limited.
Easily brushed off, again.
I know not to waste much time with people who have mental issues. Only real sickos would get on a blog and continually claim they’re an engineer when they don’t even understand the difference between flux and energy.
See a therapist.
Very little phases you off, Puffman. Not even bans.
Silly sock puppet!
Whining Wee Willy,
“Phases you off”?
You certainly lower the comprehensibility bar with that one!
How low can you go?
By the way, Willard, are you concerned that your bans aren’t working?
Maybe you need to ban harder!
Mike Flynn,
You didn’t read the thread again, did you?
It shows.
By the way, Willard, are you concerned that your bans arent working?
Maybe you need to ban harder!
Ban! Ban! Ban!
Mike Flynn,
My bans?
What are you braying about?
By the way, Willard, are you concerned that your bans arent working?
Maybe you need to ban harder!
Ban! Ban! Ban!
France to award four rocket startups launch contracts worth as much as 400 million euros
March 25, 2024 11:41 am Robert Zimmerman
https://behindtheblack.com/
“All four companies however will only receive a small upfront payment, with the bulk of the award only paid if a company achieves a maiden launch by 2028.
That the French government is now signing deals with new private and independent launch companies and not with Arianespace, the commercial arm of the European Space Agency (ESA) that has always been dominated by the French, is a major development. ”
Yes.
In US they talk about monopoly {re starship} but it’s really end of monopoly.
We like it.
SpaceX Is Insane – Starship Flight 4 Test Campaign! Different Approach!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBJ-hZw-Ew
The video mentions Europe return to cargo to ISS. It seems quite interesting. It seems to talking about inflatable heat shield, which used talk about [a long time ago} to get cargo to Mars surface. Or NASA couldn’t get robotic mission to Mars more than 1 ton, and inflatable heat shield was going to solve this problem. So you could get more 10 tons to Mars surface.
With Starship, it suppose to be able to do a 100 tons to Mars surface {in theory}.
Anyhow this suppose to be cheap and get 4 tons to Earth surface, and if also get 4 tons [or more] to Mars surface, that would be good.
So here, once again, is the explanation as to why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1654104
Instead, the resolution will be found by once and for all deciding whether “orbit without spin” is motion like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) or “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the GIF below:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If the cultists won’t get off the “reference frame” kick, then they should use the correct reference frame.
A car following a straight road is not spinning. If the road curves, the car is still not spinning. The road is the correct “reference frame” for the traveling car. As long as the car faces its direction of travel, it is not spinning.
Don’t expect the cult children to understand such simple concepts. They can’t….
“The road is the correct ‘reference frame’ for the traveling car”
The road is A ‘reference frame’ for the traveling car.
I get what you mean, but what you’ve said will just play straight into their hands, unfortunately. They then think you’re judging axial rotation wrt a "rotating reference frame" rather than an "inertial reference frame", and think that’s it. Argument over.
They don’t get that to quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object, "Non-Spinners" have to use a rotating reference frame, but that is only because "Non-Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as per the MOTL. Whereas "Spinners" have to use an inertial reference frame, but that is only because "Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as per the MOTR.
The resolution to the moon issue is thus whether or not "orbit without spin" is really motion like the MOTL or the MOTR. That’s why, I guess, you’re always asking them what their model of "orbit without spin" is. We have the ball on a string (motion like the MOTL), they don’t seem to have anything!
Correct DREMT, they’re try to pervert anything we say. They’ll claim a curved road is rotating!
That’s why I keep it simple. They have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They’ve got NOTHING.
The viable model of “orbiting without spin” is the BoS as observed by the ball spinner that Clint R always chooses to ignore.
Your own side’s argument is that "orbiting without spin" is as per the MOTR, Ball4, not the MOTL. Thought I’d just let you know.
> Theyll claim a curved road is rotating!
Wait, Puffman – are Moon Dragon cranks really arguing that what is on the spinning celestial body isn’t spinning?
It appears so, Willard.
Funny too, DREMT 1:38 pm doesn’t realize orbiting MOTR and MOTL are both spinning and not spinning at the same time depending on location of observation which DREMT refuses to always specify.
Your "location of observation" is just garbage, Ball4. All that needs to be specified is the reference frame, and that’s an Earth-centred Inertial (ECI) reference frame for both the MOTL and the MOTR, as has been explained to you repeatedly.
Little Willy, a stationary object on a spinning celestial body is not rotating about its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about the celestial body’s axis, same as every other part of the celestial body.
Clint R: “If the road curves, the car is still not spinning.” while DREMT writes it IS spinning: “It is instead rotating about the celestial bodys axis”
Spinning and not spinning at the same time is actually physically correct since all motion is relative. DREMT and Clint R can’t sometimes get into agreement with each other and never with reality because they always underspecify the motion.
I specified a stationary object, Ball4. A moving car is not stationary.
Also, "spinning" has generally been used in these discussions to refer to rotation about an internal axis.
Try to keep up.
Generally? Do try to get relative motion right, DREMT. A stationary car relative to Clint’s curved road on Earth can be observed spinning on an internal axis and so can a speeding car on Clint’s curved road. All motion is relative.
“A stationary car relative to Clint’s curved road on Earth can be observed spinning on an internal axis…”
No, Ball4. A stationary car relative to Clint’s curved road on Earth can be observed rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own internal axis, wrt an ECI reference frame and as observed from outside the Earth, located above the Earth’s axis.
Sure, a stationary car relative to Clint’s curved road on Earth can be observed not rotating on its own axis. DREMT just used a ref. frame! I see NOW ref. frames do matter to DREMT. Even DREMT can learn all motion is relative when DREMT works hard enough.
My argument is not that reference frames don’t matter, my argument is that they don’t resolve the moon issue…and, I’m correct.
Like I stated DREMT, the cult kids will try to pervert anything we say. They’ll claim a curved road is rotating!
DREMT remains incorrect but a curved road on Earth IS rotating, Clint R. Funny, even DREMT wrote the curved road is doing so.
Ball4 continues to prove me right.
The curved road is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth, and not rotating on its own internal axis. So, I agree with Clint R. I also agree with Clint R that the cult kids will try to pervert every word we say, and Ball4 is a great, ongoing example of that.
See! “They’ll claim a curved road is rotating!”
As does DREMT.
Ball4 is a great, ongoing example of that.
“They dont get that to quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object, “Non-Spinners” have to use a rotating reference frame, but that is only because “Non-Spinners” see “orbit without spin” as per the MOTL.”
Positive development in understanding why Non-spinners ‘see’ ‘orbit without spin’ as per MOTL.
It is because their choice in how to define SPIN is not accidental.
SPIN is DEFINED by them as the rotation wrt to the rotating frame of reference. The one rotating with the line extending from the Moon to the Earth.
It is obviously chosen that way to make the Moon stop spinning wrt to an observer on Earth looking at the Moon.
IOW to stop spinning wrt to the rotating frame!
Whereas spinners choose to define SPIN simply as the absolute rotation of the body, ie rotation wrt the inertial frame.
Non-spinners need to get introspective about why they make their choice in how to define spin.
“Correct DREMT, theyre try to pervert anything we say. Theyll claim a curved road is rotating!”
Folks have to remember that a frame moving at constant velocity is also an inertial frame.
So if a car is driving in a straight line, initially parallel with the the car on the curved road, then then the driver in that car will see the curved road as rotating away from her.
So in that sense the road is a rotating reference frame. And the car on it is not rotating wrt to that rotating frame.
But it is rotating wrt to the driver in the other car, in an inertial frame!
Dang Nate, you and Ball4 continue to prove us right.
In all that blah-blah, you’ve got a curved road spinning!
Keep proving me right, I can take it.
Clint thinks his incredulity as an argument. It isnt.
So non-spinners define SPIN as rotation wrt to the rotating frame of reference of an orbiting body.
How would they define SPIN for a projectile like a baseball or a cannonball.
A pitched baseball has spin, to make it a curveball.
But it also follows an arc, a parabolic trajectory. Do they need to measure the SPIN of the ball wrt the rest frame or wrt to the curved trajectory?
After all the curved trajectory could be portion of an orbit. If so they would need to measure its SPIN wrt to the rotating frame of this orbit.
It does get rather complicated to define SPIN in the way non-spinners want to do it.
To see how weird this non-spinner view gets:
A baseball pitched with NO SPIN relative to the ground, will acquire spin as it goes through its arc on its way to the plate, according to the non-spinners!
Why? Because the parabolic path of the ball is part of a larger rotation. An object not rotating wrt the rest frame IS spinning wrt to this ‘orbital’ rotation.
Nate, a baseball’s spin is determined by its path. If the same face of the ball always faces the direction of travel, it is NOT spinning.
But, your desperation is as amusing as is your immaturity.
"Nate, a baseball’s spin is determined by its path"
Are the cult kids wondering how "spin" is defined by "Non-Spinners" again? Both sides define "spin" in the same way. As with the "Spinners" viewpoint, "spin" is just any motion of the body that is separate from the "orbit without spin" motion. There are two separate motions:
1) "Orbit without spin" (or simply "orbit", or "orbital motion").
2) Spin.
Any orbiting body will exhibit either a combination of both 1) and 2), or just 1) alone. From the "Non-Spinners" viewpoint, the moon just "orbits", for example, whilst Earth both "orbits" and "spins". The "Spinners" don’t have any naturally-occurring examples of an orbiting body that just does motion 1) alone, which should give them pause for thought about their viewpoint – but nothing ever does.
> a baseballs spin is determined by its path
Looks like Puffman rediscovered Mr. Asshat’s argument!
When will this lead him to the path of linear translation?
Huh?
“Nate, a baseballs spin is determined by its path. If the same face of the ball always faces the direction of travel, it is NOT spinning.”
Exactly the kind of silliness I would expect.
So a ball is pitched with no spin. As it flies on its arc, if it doesn’t point its front(?) along the path, then it must have somehow acquired spin!
How would a ball that had no rotation when launched TURN, ie rotate, to point along its path? How it would it acquire rotation just by passing through a uniform gravitational field?
Hint: that would require a torque.
I will assume those additional comments were Nate expressing agreement with this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655448
DREMT can’t follow the discussion, wants to post anyway. Too bad.
Must be another comment of agreement.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Not in the least. I do end up with a lot of people attempting last words, though.
Plenty of videos of launched balls in sports. Basketball 3 point shots, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVv7_K519dU
The ball either has spin (rotation) from the start or not.
Independently, it follows its parabolic path through space.
The rotation doesnt attempt to follow the path. Why would it? That would violate conservation of angular momentum.
But the denier dream team thinks that’s just fine.
See what I mean?
No.
My posts have content.
Yet another last word attempt.
Yet another pointless DREMT post with no content. If only I got a penny for each one of these.
…and another last word attempt.
Clearly DREMT is leading in the quest for the Lifetime Achievement in Last Wording Award.
Nate is really going for it with these last word attempts…he must be absolutely desperate to get the last word. As somebody who holds up a mirror for these people, it does get tiring.
Oh, the level of hypocrisy on display..
…as somebody who holds up a mirror for these people, it does get tiring.
‘holds up a mirror’
Sure, last wording on long-dead threads hoping that nobody will notice!
Everybody here understands that last wording is the obsession of one poster.
Even in this very thread, where DREMT butted into the middle of my discussion with Clint, pretending it was over, then trying to have the last word!
What an a-hole.
…somebody who holds up a mirror for these people, it does get tiring.
Yet another last word attempt from Graham D. Warner.
Now Little Willy gets in on the action, also desperate for the last word. I’ll happily hold up a mirror to his behaviour, too. After all, Nate and Little Willy are two of the worst last-worder offenders on the blog. As his moral superior, it’s my duty to show him up for what he is.
“two of the worst last-worder offenders on the blog.”
Yes, only OTHER people are offenders according to narcissists. Their bad behavior is always justified.
Still trying to get the last word!
Graham D. Warner is still trying to have the last word!
Little Willy wants the last word, again. How predictable.
[PUFFMAN] The road is the correct reference frame for the traveling car.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] They then think you’re judging axial rotation wrt a “rotating reference frame” rather than an “inertial reference frame”
When will our two Moon Dragon cranks argue over angular momentum?
When will Little Willy write a relevant comment displaying any knowledge of physics?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1654706
How does copying and pasting from a link he doesn’t understand display any knowledge of physics?
Does Graham D. Warner count his silly Motte-and-Baileys as manifestation any kind of understanding of physics?
It shows more mastery in gaslighting people that anything!
If you say so, Little Willy.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The ‘ball on a string’ demonstration is a common tool used in physics education to illustrate the concept of conservation of angular momentum. However, various confounding factors can cause significant deviations from the idealized case, particularly under extreme conditions or when using low-stiffness pivots or high coefficients of friction. These factors include air resistance, contact friction at the pivot point, the mass of the ball and string, the angle of the string due to gravity, and the wobbling of the pivot point due to the centrifugal forces acting on it. In this work, we critically review by means of accurate simulations the adequateness of the ‘ball on a string’ demonstration in view of these confounding factors and provide recommendations for instructors on how to maximize the educational value of the demonstration while minimizing potential confusion for students. Our analysis suggests that a stiff pivot and avoiding extreme conditions are key to obtaining results that are in good agreement with the idealized case. We also caution instructors against using the demonstration without at least mentioning the confounding factors, as this may lead to a questionable understanding of the underlying physics principles.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/acf6b9
Silly willy provides another example of kids with keyboards. He found another link he can’t understand.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. The Moon discussion has nothing to do with angular momentum, since Moon has zero angular momentum.
This is WAY over the heads of cult children.
“since Moon has zero angular momentum”
Only if it is not rotating on its axis.
… as observed from Earth.
Ball4 waits around, looking to add "…as observed from x" to any comments on the moon debate that he can, even though it’s just something he’s made up. Reference frames are real, his "…as observed from x" nonsense that he adds even when the reference frame has been specified, is just crap in order to obfuscate.
DREMT, observation of relative motion requires ref. frame specified along with location of observer. Supply both correctly and you will find the agreement you have sought for many years.
Incorrect, Ball4. If I told you that the "location of observer" was always outside the orbit, you would just move to a third layer of obfuscation. You just never stop.
No need for a third layer. Just specify ref. frame and location of observation for relative motion and you will be good to go.
That’s a lie, but OK, here goes:
The "Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as movement like the MOTR, wrt an ECI reference frame, and as observed from outside the orbit.
The "Non-Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as movement like the MOTL, wrt an ECI reference frame, and as observed from outside the orbit.
DREMT dreams up an irrelevant frame. DREMT, the “spinners” do not use an ECI accelerated frame since there is none on the MOTR,MOTL wiki page to use! Try again. Use the frames & potential observation locations shown on the page which both spinners and non-spinners can use.
There was that third layer of obfuscation I mentioned…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The Earth is represented by the central circle in each GIF, Ball4. The moon is shown orbiting it. It isn’t to scale, by any means, but it is representative of an ECI reference frame in that the origin of the reference frame is located in the centre of the “Earth circle” and you can imagine the coordinate system axes extending outwards from that point in all directions. Wrt that reference frame, and as observed from outside the orbit, the position of the two sides in this debate is as I said.
Sure, you can make up a reference frame and a location of observation for each moon to show it is spinning on its own axis and not spinning on its own axis at the same time as I’ve written all along. All motion is relative. All means ALL, no exceptions.
The issue is simply whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Why are you such a relentless troll?
It can be either depending on frame and observation location. All motion is relative.
The “frame and location of observation” has been given, Ball4. It is the same for both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners”. The difference is what they believe “orbit without spin” to be, MOTR or MOTL, respectively.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655359
…"frame and location of observation" has been given, Ball4. It is the same for both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners". The difference is what they believe "orbit without spin" to be, MOTR or MOTL, respectively.
Then DREMT needs to provide a picture showing location of observation and frame when the wiki picture does not include the ones specified, no hand waving allowed. The current wiki picture shows MOTL and MOTR can be observed either spinning or non-spinning depending on observer’s location in the wiki picture.
The location of observation is outside the orbit, as I said. When you’re looking at the screen, what you see presented to you is shown as if you were sitting in space, outside the orbit. That is the most obvious location of observation. That is what I’m always referring to when discussing the GIF. OK?
Not ok, earlier DREMT specified “referring to an ECI reference frame”, now DREMT specifies: “When you’re looking at the screen”.
What is ok is specifying the frame and location of each and every observation DREMT makes because all motion is relative. The BoS is inertially spinning on r and R but when observed from the accelerated frame of the ball spinner, the ball is observed only orbiting on R with no angular momentum on r.
Now Ball4 conflates reference frames with his silly "location of observation" requirement, which he invented in the first place, but maintained was separate and distinct as a concept from reference frames…you just can’t talk to him.
> since Moon has zero angular momentum.
It’d be interesting to know if Graham D. Warner agrees with that.
It would certainly interest those who are utterly obsessed with me.
That Graham D. Warner refuses to clarify his stance on the angular momentum of the Moon is even more interesting.
…for those utterly obsessed with me.
…for those who would like to see an explicit and coherent Moon Dragon crank position.
This is what I think about the subject:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1654735
If physics considers a ball on a string to have spin angular momentum, when objectively it is not rotating about its own internal axis, then clearly the concept of spin angular momentum is separate from the concept of whether something is objectively spinning or not. In which case, I question the usefulness of discussing angular momentum in resolving the moon dispute.
Possibly less interesting than fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to even say what the GHE is supposed to do! Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
You are a perfect example. Your description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling” looks meaningless, doesn’t it?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Possibly you are braying something relevant.
Possibly.
dremt…”I question the usefulness of discussing angular momentum in resolving the moon dispute”.
***
There is no usefulness in it. The Moon is clearly not rotating about a local axis hence it has no angular momentum, only linear momentum.
Mr. Asshat might appreciate this blast from Graham D. Warner’s past:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544572
Why is Graham D. Warner still so coy?
I would have thought an object that is objectively not spinning would have no spin angular momentum, but the claim from the self-appointed physics gurus on this blog is that the ball on a string has spin angular momentum. They also claim that an object moving in a perfectly straight line has orbital angular momentum. On that basis, it seems absolutely anything could possess both orbital and spin angular momentum. So I’ll go with “don’t know” in answer to the question, “do you agree with Clint R?”
… that the ball on a string has inertial spin angular momentum on r and R is physically correct.
B4,
Here is how the exchange I just quoted continues:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544593
Why Graham D. Warner does not have the guts to clearly state that he believes the Moon has no angular momentum is quite something, don’t you think?
dremt…”There is orbital angular momentum, and there is spin angular momentum”.
***
AFAIC, the only way orbital angular momentum can occur is if a mass is attached to an axis by a rigid connector. Such a mass is constrained to move along a curved path therefore its momentum is acting along a curved path.
Let’s be clear too that the word angular in angular momentum is a reference to an angle. It is the angle a rigid connector makes with an x or y axis that is changing whereas with linear momentum it is a distance along a straight line that is changing. Both feature changes in distance but one is measured in metres/second along a straight line whereas the other is measured in radians per second around a curve.
That arises from necessity. You could measure the rate of change of a point on a wheel on the circumference but it is much more efficient and convenient to measure the rate of change of a radial line’s angle with a reference axis.
The radian can be both a measure of angle and a measure along a circumference. The radian is defined as the length of a radius placed along a circumference. It fits 3.14 (pi) times on a semi-circle and 6.28 (2pi) times on a full circle. If you divide 360 degrees by 6.28 you get 57.32 degrees. Therefore the radian is also a measure of the arc subtended by one radius along a circle.
> Lets be clear too that the word angular in angular momentum is a reference to an angle.
That very profund observation certainly deserves another two thousand words by Mr. Asshat.
Next he’s gonna spend ten thousand words dissecting why the word “torque” describes the rate of change of angular momentum that would be imparted to an isolated body.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Next hes gonna spend ten thousand words dissecting why the word “torque” describes the rate of change of angular momentum that would be imparted to an isolated body.”
Which of your superpowers do you most like – mindreading, or seeing into the future?
Maybe both pale into insignificance if you believe torque is “rate of change of angular momentum that would be imparted to an isolated body”
Are you really that delusional, or just pretending?
“Why Graham D. Warner does not have the guts to clearly state that he believes the Moon has no angular momentum is quite something, don’t you think?”
It’s nothing to do with “guts”, Little Willy. It’s just called “being skeptical”.
“They also claim that an object moving in a perfectly straight line has orbital angular momentum. On that basis, it seems absolutely anything could possess both orbital and spin angular momentum. So Ill go with dont know in answer to the question, do you agree with Clint R?”
It seems for some people, ignorance is BLISS.
Because it enables them to dismiss any science they don’t understand.
Gordon, and now Clint agree that the Moon has no angular momentum!
Gordon had a chance to explain his bizarre reasoning, but, as usual, just ran away.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653918
Somehow Gordon gets this one right.
Moon has no angular momentum. It has no spin angular momentum, and it has no orbital angular momentum. It has no total angular momentum.
To have spin angular momentum, it must have spin. To have orbital angular momentum, it must be physically attached to what it is orbiting.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Which of your superpowers do you most like – mindreading, or seeing into the future?”
I prefer word reading and knowing that cranks are creature of habits.
Did you know that Puffman describes the orbit of the Moon as a rotation, whereas Mr. Mr. Asshat describes it as a translation?
There are some differences between the ways various "Non-Spinners" see things, but nowhere near as many fundamental differences between the ways various "Spinners" see things. "Spinners" can’t agree on any of the basic 1) – 4) issues.
Let’s try that again:
There are some differences between the ways various "Non-Spinners" see things, but nowhere near as many fundamental differences as there are between the ways various "Spinners" see things. "Spinners" can’t agree amongst themselves on any of the basic 1) – 4) issues.
Spinners that describe the relative motion correctly, all agree among themselves, DREMT. There appears to be no hope for DREMT to ever understand all motion is relative.
Funnily enough, Ball4, there are three other numbers in the 1) – 4) other than just 3). It’s not all about reference frames.
Nate says:
March 25, 2024 at 7:15 AM
“Christos,
Do you have an answer or not?
What evidence do you have that the CERES satellite is missing some of the reflected SW radiation from Earth?
It seem you are simply asserting this without evidence.”
–
–
The simple answer I have is that NASA performs the very much accurate and the very much precise measurements of planets (including Earth) and moons in solar system the average Albedo.
–
Since for every planet and moon the specular reflection is neglected, it is also neglected for Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Since for every planet and moon the specular reflection is neglected, it is also neglected for Earth.”
Circular logic, Christos. I am asking you for the evidence that this is assertion is correct.
I gave you a paper describing the measurement of reflected solar by CERES. Can you show us your evidence that they are NOT measuring all reflected solar?
I have damonstrated the specular reflection is neglected for every smooth surface planet and moon in solar system, namely:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa (of Jupiter)
Ganymede (of Jupiter)
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have not demonstrated specular reflection is neglected for Earth since satellite radiometer measurements do include specular reflection in the albedo band of interest & that is explained in detail in the literature.
It is Christos’ calculations for Earth that are invalid as EM pointed out, in part, because you neglect to calculate the all-sky emission incident on Earth L&O surface from a hemisphere of directions.
Thank you, Ball4.
Now, please read the following:
From Wikipedia
“The average albedo of Earth is about 0.3.[15] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.”
–
–
“Earth’s average surface temperature due to its albedo and the greenhouse effect is currently about 15 C (59 F).”
–
“if the entire Earth was covered by water a so-called ocean planet the average temperature on the planet would rise to almost 27 C (81 F).[19]”
Sample albedos
Surface………Typical.albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[6]
Open ocean 0.06[7]
Worn asphalt 0.12[6]
Conifer forest,
summer 0.08,[8] 0.09 to 0.15[9]
Deciduous forest 0.15 to 0.18[9]
Bare soil 0.17[10]
Green grass 0.25[10]
Desert sand 0.40[11]
New concrete 0.55[10]
Ocean ice 0.50 to 0.70[10]
Fresh snow 0.80[10]
Aluminum 0.85[12][13]
********
–
It is a demonstration, the specular reflection is neglected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, the satellite albedo band radiometers look down at scenes of fresh asphalt, open ocean, worn asphalt, conifer forest in summer, deciduous trees, bare soil, green grass, desert sand, new concrete, ocean ice, fresh snow, and aluminum & more all in the albedo band of interest to measure Earth’s global, annualized albedo. There is no specular reflection neglected in the measurements – all in the same band!
Just read the details in the published literature to come up to speed on the subject matter.
Exactly. Assertion is not evidence Christos.
Is that the best argument you have Nate? The evidence supplied by Christos is strong.
Thank you, Nate.
From Wikipedia:
“When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, whereas desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4.[14] The average albedo of Earth is about 0.3.[15] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.”
–
–
The oceanic specular reflection, land specular reflection and the clouds specular reflection are neglected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Specular reflection is neglected by Christos but not the actual measurements which include Earth scene specular reflection.
Ball4.
“Specular reflection is neglected by Christos but not the actual measurements which include Earth scene specular reflection.”
Have you borrowed Willard’s gibberish generator?
Would you be able to provide an English translation for ordinary people?
nate…many of us have been asking for evidence that the GHE and AGW theories are correct but not even your authority figure, the IPCC, can supply such evidence.
This is a blog, not a peer review group. If you cannot supply evidence to support your alarmist theories why would you ask Christos for evidence to support his claims?
Rising temperatures from climate change are depleting oxygen to levels too low to support marine life in coastal waters.
In 2021, there were mass die-offs of shellfish along the coasts of Washington and British Columbia, and Oregon’s crab catch was well below average, according to the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission.
Historical data and maps show summer hypoxia on the rise off the northwest coast during the past few decades. From 1950 to 1980, low oxygen levels were recorded in 2% of that part of the Pacific. It grew to 24% from 2009 to 2018 and then more than doubled by the summer of 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54476-0
This is typical of the nonsense you post that I find offensive. I live in British Columbia and there is no information that we are experiencing warmer temperatures. In fact, I complained several times in Roy’s blog about how cold it was last winter.
What you are referencing in your post is likely the ‘red tide’ issue, where algae turns the coastal water red and acts as a toxin to sea life and to humans who eat infected shellfish. It can kill fish en masse.
Red tides usually occur during the heat of summer but to claim that as being related to global warming is ijiotic. Red tide has been around as far as human history has recorded it.
This is typical of the nonsense you post that I find offensive. The Nature paper in my link says nothing about “Red tides.”
Your comment is as clueless as your posts about moist air being heavier than dry air.
A,
“The amount of upwelling and water-column primary production via phytoplankton growth are influenced by the amount of summertime, southward, upwelling-favorable winds in the northern California Current. It is hypothesized that these summertime winds . . . ”
Surface winds have precisely nothing to do with ocean currents, particularly those that run in different directions at different depths.
Using weasel-words like “are influenced” without quantification shows that the authors are “quite possibly” “fanatical GHE cultists”. Maybe you don’t believe so, but you are not prepared to name one person who values your opinion, so you don’t even believe the nonsense you claim to!
Here’s another piece of news from the paper –
“The number of 90F days at the Portland, OR, airport is increasing over the last 25 years at a rate of 0.180 0.061 days per year (Fig. 5). By extension then, we might expect to see more widespread hypoxia in the northern California Current as climate change continues.”
0.18 +-0.061 days per year of “climate change”! How scarily scientific is that?
Maybe you could ask the authors for their description of the GHE, but I don’t think you can be bothered. A fine example of paying a prestigious journal several thousand dollars to print whatever nonsense you provide.
Got any more?
swenson…amazing that it’s hot in California in the summer. The article does not mention that it gets pretty hot along the coast of British Columbia in the summer. Of course, natural variability is not clearly understood by climate alarmists like Ark.
Spoken like a true pretend Engineer.
from Swenson…”The number of 90F days at the Portland, OR, airport is increasing over the last 25 years at a rate of 0.180 0.061 days per year (Fig. 5)”.
***
Portland is 80 miles inland from the coast. If you go 80 miles inland from Vancouver, you will find similar temperatures in summer (90F = 32C). However, this paper is referencing coastal waters and Portland is 80 miles away from coastal waters. It is on a river, but that is hardly coastal and you won’t find the same sea life along that river as you do on the coast.
So, they take two a day temperatures and claim a warming rate of 0.061F a year. Dividing by 1.8 to get the equivalence in C, we get 0.03C. It has warmed 0.03C in Portland Oregon, some 80 miles inland, and the alarmists are desperately leaning on that as having any accuracy. Worse still, they claim it is killing sea life through hypoxia.
Shame!!!
That’s because the Nature paper is written by corrupt alarmists who are using a natural phenomenon like red tide to further their propaganda. And you are equally corrupt, posting it to further your lost cause.
That response is as worthy of a pretend Engineer as your posts about moist air being heavier than dry air, or the Moon’s phases being caused by Earth’s shadow!
Gee…it’s too bad that all Ark has to offer are insults and ad hom.
Your response “is ijiotic” and “corrupt.”For shame.
A,
What you say is about as relevant as saying that Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion should be ignored because Newton’s bizarre calculations of the size of New Jerusalem were products of his religious beliefs, based on faith, or dismiss Newton completely, on the grounds that his occult alchemical beliefs were evidence of a diseased mind.
What anybody says or writes is their opinion. The Royal Society’s motto is “Nullius in verba” (believe no one). Backed up by Feynman “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
I agree, which makes Feynman a smart chap.
You can’t even give a valid description of the GHE, can you? Why would you expect anyone whose IQ exceeds their shoe size to take you seriously?
Facts, man, facts. Keep your dreams for sleeping.
Carry on!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“The Royal Society’s motto is “Nullius in verba” (believe no one)”
You obviously never took latin lessons.
Why do you quote the Royal Society?
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why do you quote the Royal Society?”
Why do you want to know? Are you really dim, or just pretending?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why do you want to know?
Because kinda undermines the point you want to make.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy posts yet another article he cannot possibly explain, therefore he cannot defend it.
***
“The ball on a string demonstration is a common tool used in physics education to illustrate the concept of conservation of angular momentum”.
***
The author fails to define angular momentum and appears to be confused about the meaning. Most article I have read on angular momentum offer examples of point masses moving along curved lines without explaining why the masses are moving along curved lines, or even how that is possible without external forces acting on them. It is not possible for any mass to move along a curved line without being under the influence of an external force. In other words, point masses cannot possible have an angular momentum.
Angular momentum is generally an idea in a person’s mind, IMHO, with no attempt made to rationalize the theory. People seem to ‘know’ what it means but they cannot explain it. Then they go on to talk about conserving something they cannot explain.
One notion is that angular momentum is the curvilinear parallel of linear momentum. However, that can only be true at one instant of time when the two are inseparable. One instant later and the linear momentum is operating along a slightly different angle, which undoes the definition of linear momentum.
—-
“…the mass of the ball and string, the angle of the string due to gravity, and the wobbling of the pivot point due to the centrifugal forces acting on it”.
***
There is no centrifugal force acting on the ball. Centrifugal force, by definition, is a force acting in a radial direction from an axis. With a BoS, the main force acting is the tension on the string which is centripetal and acting toward the axis. Any outward force is a fictitious force that can only be implied.
—
“Our analysis suggests that a stiff pivot and avoiding extreme conditions are key to obtaining results that are in good agreement with the idealized case”.
***
The authors seem to be suggesting that teachers steer clear of the B0S and use a “stiff pivot”. That suggests a rigid lever arm, the only object that can truly be claimed to have an angular momentum. That’s because the body is turning as a unit. It is debatable if that applies to the string of the BoS unit although some diehard might claim that its mass is significant.
Most examples of angular momentum I have seen rely on solid objects rotating about a central axis. There are definite torques occurring about an axis at a certain length and that is the root of the angular torque generally associated with angular momentum.
A torque wrench is called that because it comprises a force acting at a certain distance from an axis (a torque) along a rigid lever arm.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108
Angular momentum is generally an idea in a persons mind
Spoken like a true pretend Engineer!
One should note that Ark cannot explain it either. Like a true alarmist, he resorts to ad homs and insults when cornered.
Your response “is ijiotic” and “corrupt.”For shame.
More of the same from Ark as he slides deeper into the abyss of ignorance.
At least I don’t have a pathological need to pretend to be an engineer!
A,
You wrote “At least I dont have a pathological need to pretend to be an engineer!”
Do you just need to pretend to be an engineer for no reason at all?
Odd.
> The authors
Mr. Asshat is as good as counting as he is at copy-pasting links!
Willard, please stop trolling.
That will be Mr. Mr. Asshat to you.
Mr. Mr. Asshat it is!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’d prefer that you simply call me Sir. Show some respect for your betters.
Your preferences are duly noted, Mr. Mr. Asshat.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Ball4 dipped into his store of fantasy, and wrote –
“Christos, the satellite albedo band radiometers . . . ”
Ball4 might be dreaming of “Earth-reflected sunlight measurements have been made by pixelated broadband silicon radiometers (0.41.0 μm, visible-to-near-infrared or VNIR”.
He might have renamed such instruments to “albedo band radiometers” in an attempt to pretend that his opinion should be valued. 0.4-1.0 um is a small proportion of the energy spectrum, and the instruments measure a very narrow reflection window over less than 100% of the surface.
Ball4 is a fantasist of the fanatical GHE cultist variety, who believes faith is superior to fact.
Ask him to describe the GHE, and see the response.
Not terribly bright, is Ball4. Away with the fairies, in most cases.
swenson…good catch. As we have both noted, there is no instrument capable of accurately measuring the full spectrum of reflected solar radiation.
0.4-1.0 micron really is too small a proportion of the earthen albedo energy spectrum & is not all of the band measured Swenson. Your credibility diminishes even more.
Ball4,
Go and complain to the peer reviewers at “nature”.
You wrote –
“0.4-1.0 micron really is too small a proportion of the earthen albedo energy spectrum & is not all of the band measured Swenson.”
And of course, you can’t provide any figures at all to contradict mine, can you?
Far less explain how any satellite sensor can respond to a specular reflection outside its viewing aperture – or if the satellite in question does not scan the whole surface.
You really a gullible and fact free fanatical GHE cultist, arent you? You are probably silly enough to claim that farmers greenhouses heat the planet!
Go on, tell me they dont. You can always imitate Bindidon, and say that what you wrote before was an accident, and you didnt mean to write it.
Off you go now – maybe your keyboard is possessed, and needs to be exorcised!
Here you see what a load of permanent nonsense is spread on this blog by the ignoramus de service:
” Angular momentum is generally an idea in a persons mind, IMHO, with no attempt made to rationalize the theory. People seem to know what it means but they cannot explain it. Then they go on to talk about conserving something they cannot explain. ”
*
This is the “opinion” of people who, while always relying on the authority of contrarian blogs, accuse everyone of himself relying on the authority of those they continually discredit – unless they say exactly what they want to hear.
The most typical example is Wikipedia, which they think is always wrong – except when they think Wikipedia is right.
*
Real engineers tend to rely of what was discovered long time ago:
” In physics, angular momentum (sometimes called moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum. It is an important physical quantity because it is a conserved quantity the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant.
Angular momentum has both a direction and a magnitude, and both are conserved. Bicycles and motorcycles, flying discs, rifled bullets, and gyroscopes owe their useful properties to conservation of angular momentum.
Conservation of angular momentum is also why hurricanes form spirals and neutron stars have high rotational rates.
In general, conservation limits the possible motion of a system, but it does not uniquely determine it. ”
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertsons trash 100% deserves it.
binny…”Bicycles and motorcycles, flying discs, rifled bullets, and gyroscopes owe their useful properties to conservation of angular momentum”.
***
Each one of those examples involves a solid object that is rotating. I have no argument with the application of angular momentum to any one of those examples.
BTW…when I claimed AM is an idea in the mind, I was referring to certain minds that seem confused about it. I am in no way claiming that AM does not exist, like time.
AM must have a rotating solid object, whether it is a sphere rotating about an internal axis or a lever arm rotating about an external axis. The basis of AM is torque, which is defined as the product of a force applied to a lever arm at a certain distance. If I apply a pound of force to a lever arm 12 inches long I produce a torque of 12 inch-pounds about an axis, or one foot pound.
Btw…I know that because I have torque wrenches that measure in inch-pounds and foot pounds.
If I apply a force to a mass, that can accelerate the mass, on a frictionless surface, then remove the force, the mass will continue to move with a linear momentum, in one direction, by definition. If I do the same by applying a force to a sphere, like an atlas mounted on a frictionless axis, the sphere will continue to rotate with an angular momentum. We can claim a linear momentum only for a single point on the surface and only for an instant. That’s because linear momentum can apply only in one direction.
Angular momentum is a reference to a mass at a certain distance from an axis moving in a curvilinear path at a certain angular velocity. That’s the key. Angular velocity is a reference to the angular rate of change of position of a radial line in radians per second, extending from an axis. Linear momentum is a measure in a straight line of the rate of change of position in metres/second.
That has no application to the Moon since the Moon has only linear velocity. The reason it moves in an orbit is that Earth’s gravitational field acts on it just enough to bend the linear motion into a curvilinear motion. That comes straight from Newton.
There is no way a body like the Moon can have an angular momentum, unless it is rotating on an inner axis and the AM is about that axis.
Always, always the same blah blah blah blah coming from this blog’s most ignorant person.
” That comes straight from Newton. ”
Except when Newton explains to Mercator in 1675 that the cause for the apparent optical lunar libration in longitude is due to Moon’s rotation about its polar axis being nearly exactly synchronous to its orbit around Earth.
Newton’s hint on Mercator’s publication is in the original Latin version of his Principia, Book III, Prop. XVII, Theorem XV:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
This was published by Mercator in 1676 in his treatise
Institutionum astronomicarum libri duo
Mercator’s excerрt on Newton’s explanation of Moon’s rotation about its axis can be found on page 285:
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA285&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
That, of course is permanently denied by all pseudoskeptical boys a la Robertson.
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
As I have claimed before, Newton wrote in old Latin and there is a problem with the translation. He appears to have used revolution and rotation in the same manner and if what he meant was revolution, that puts an entirely different meaning on the Moon as far as local rotation is concerned. He was in fact referring to rotation as the Moon’s revolution about an external axis, namely the Earth.
This is not a far stretch. There is ample evidence of several errors in translation from different translators. A basic problem for any translator is not having Newton there to confirm the meaning. However, we can glean from what Newton did write what he really meant.
It is written plainly by Newton that the Moon moves with a linear motion and that the linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. He also noted that the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at the major focal point, meaning the Earth. Add them up and he is describing curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Newton was no dummy. If he thought the Moon rotated on a local axis, he would have had plenty to say about it. In the three volumes of Principia, there is barely a mention that could be construed as implying local rotation. And of those mentions, it is the translator who has leaped to conclusions with his translation.
https://tinyurl.com/2xnuzn64
Newton lists the time frame for the motion of the bodies in this list – Jupiter, Earth, Moon, Venus, Sun. Earth’s movement is 23 hours 56 minutes.
Clearly he is referring to the Moon’s (and the Earth’s and the Sun’s etc) rotation, not its orbit in this section.
barry,
What are your views on Newton’s anti-Trinitarianism?
If Newton wanted you to use “menstrual blood of the sordid whore” in an alchemical experiment, it might not be best to rush off to your local bordello. Would you agree?
None of Newton’s writings have anything at all to do with the non-existent GHE, do they?
Just used by fanatical GHE cultists to avoid facing the reality that nobody can provide a description of the GHE which agrees with reality. You might as well continuing your endless diversion about something which has no practical relevance to anything at all – whether the moon rotates, revolves, or both or neither!
A barking dog also makes the same noise over and over.
barry,
You wrote –
“A barking dog also makes the same noise over and over”
A fanatical GHE cultist can’t describe the GHE in any way which agrees with reality. That’s why they resort to pointless nonsense like “A barking dog also makes the same noise over and over”.
Is that all you’ve got? Woof woof!
Is it being argued that since Newton did alchemy (ie primitive chemistry), then he must have been wrong about motion and gravity?
Good luck with that!
“Thats why they resort to pointless nonsense”
Swenson thinks his incessant whines about “No GHE. Just more GHE cult fantasies.”, etc etc etc. are somehow NOT pointless nonsense that can be safely ignored.
Tee hee hee!
barry, barry, Newton was talking about day/night periods. Moon’s day/night periods are caused by its orbit. Earth, and other planets, day/night periods are cause by spin.
Earth orbits and spins, but Moon only orbits.
You join Bindi in not understanding Newton. And like Bindi, II bet you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Prove me wrong.
Puffman,
Do you think the Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes to orbit the Sun?
Silly willy, are you completely ignorant of science, or just an immature brat with nothing to do all day, or both?
Something tells me you’re not a latin lover, Puffman…
barry
This is an endless, useless debate which Robertson, despite having been corrected so often, always restarts from scratch.
Some years ago he brazenly wrote:
” I would not think that Newton would confuse revolution with rotation. ”
One hardly could behave more stubborn, ignorant and unscientific.
But for the pseudo-skeptical lunar spin denŷing guys on this blog (Robertson and his acolytes: Clint R, DREMT, the Hunter boy, Swenson, etc.) it’s easy to distract, distort, or misrepresent what is actually easy for everyone to read, which however strangely doesn’t bother them.
Original Latin text
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′. ”
English by Ian Bruce (translation from Newton’s original source dated 2012), thus NOT by Andrew Motte:
” 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. ”
*
To claim that Newton understood by ‘revolving’ a rotation for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun but coincidentally not for the Moon really means to be mentally deranged.
*
These people’s next nonsense is to intentionally misrepresent what Newton meant with ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
While Newton used this expression solely for motion PERIODS, they distorted it to claim that ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ means a different kind of motion.
And so on and so on.
*
And even when you show another piece of Prop. XVII:
” ” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit… ”
i.e.
” For the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth… ”
they find some way to escape by inventing Newton’s alleged opinion. Incredible, but true.
Barry: you won’t beat this gang, regardless how much you write.
Clint, the days of the planets are measured by the rotation, their years by orbit. The Moon’s orbit is measured to months, its rotation to its day, same as the other bodies.
You are correct that Newton is talking about the diurnal motion of the planets, the Sun and the Moon – he is referring to how long it takes to complete one rotation. Diurnal (day/night) is always tied to rotation, not to orbit. You just invented that connection.
“The daily motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the Moon arises from its own daily motion”
He uses the word ‘revolvitur’ in the next passage, which can be translated as either revolve or rotate. But we don’t have to guess his meaning, as he lists the planets, the Sun and the Moon all together, and he gives the diurnal rotation period for each. Your ‘interpretation’ that he switches meaning to ‘revolve’ for the moon without signalling that he has done so is baseless and self-serving.
Also, he is proposing in that section that it is the Moon’s rotation on its own axis that contributes to lunar libration.
You can make up stories as much as you like, but you’re only going to be convincing yourself.
Bin,
“To claim that Newton understood by ‘revolving’ a rotation for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun but coincidentally not for the Moon really means to be mentally deranged.”
It’s simply self-serving. There is no rational argument here, just an assertion, because they don’t know how to be actually skeptical by reading for comprehension, instead of cherry-picking and garbling to serve their preconception.
“Each one of those examples involves a solid object that is rotating”
The Moon is a solid object.
With a hurricane, or any wind, you have a mass of air particles acting as a cohesive unit, comparable to a solid. The particles act as a unit to supply a force against an object. Since such winds can act in an angular rotation it would be accurate to classify them as having an angular momentum. However, you cannot take one molecule of air and claim it has an angular momentum, only when they all act together can an angular momentum be claimed.
ball4…”Use the frames & potential observation locations shown on the page which both spinners and non-spinners can use”.
***
Go complain to your aunt about reference frames, that’s about as close to relative as your going to get with lunar motion. The Moon orbits the Earth on an imaginary orbital plane which is all in the same reference frame. We are only concerned about Earth-bound observers and that removes any other frame.
We on Earth observing the Moon see only one face of the Moon. Any other person anywhere on the planet sees the same face. That’s akin to people standing at various points inside a track and seeing only the same side of a vehicle orbiting the track.
We know the car is not rotating on its COG, otherwise it would spin out and likely crash. Lunar motion is the same, the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth hence it has the same curvilinear motion as the car orbiting a track.
If the car rotated around its COG exactly once per orbit of the track, we inside the track would see every side of the car during an orbit.
Gordon, you would only observe one side of the car inside the track. The opposite side from the one observed outside the track, just like one face of the moon. Inertially, the race car and Moon do spin on their own axes.
Not possible, B4. If a car orbiting a track rotates about its COG even briefly, it means the tires have lost traction. We se that in races on an oval where a car does lose traction and continues to rotate about it’s COG while also continuing to orbit the track partially. In other words, during such a spin out, the car has both linear motion and angular motion about its COG.
If someone was observing the lunar orbit from outside the orbital plane, he would see all sides of the Moon. That does not indicate lunar local rotation, it means the Moon is moving with a curvilinear translation only.
Just as with the car on the track, someone inside the orbital plane sees only one side of the car. The reason we see only one side of the Moon from inside the orbital plane is that the Moon is moving like the car, with only a curvilinear motion without local rotation.
… as observed from Earth.
It’s possible for the car not to spin out, Gordon. When a car orbiting the Indy 500 track rotates about its COG once per rev., it doesn’t mean the tires have lost traction when the car is, say, doing 10mph following the centerline of that track.
Read my lips b4, when a car circuits a track it is NOT rotating about its COG. To rotate about a COG, a complete 360 degree rotations is required about the COG, not about the track.
This is why you and other spinners are so confused about the subject. A full rotation is done on a spot, not around an oval.
If I have a car sitting on a spot, I would need a turntable to rotate it 360 degrees. Driving it around a track and claiming you have rotated it 360 degrees is just plain silly.
It’s the same with an MGR. If I am sitting on a wooden horse on an MGR and the horse is bolted to the floor of the MGR, it cannot rotate. If I staple my shoes to the floor of a MGR, get back into them and lace them up, and start the MGR turning, it is not possible for me to rotate about my COG or an axis running vertical through me from heat to toe.
Wikipedia gives an example of MOTL and MOTR, and says the moon which does not rotate WRT the viewer is following a curvilinear motion but not rotating. If you happen to remember which was which, the MOTL/MOTR have been ‘swapped’ in this picture.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Circular_motion_vs_rotation.svg
“The motion on the left, an example of curvilinear translation, cannot be treated as rotation since there is no change in orientation, whereas the right can be treated as rotation.”
Here’s the original.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“The motion on the left, an example of curvilinear translation, cannot be treated as rotation since there is no change in orientation, whereas the right can be treated as rotation.”
Yes, the right in your first link is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”
Same motion as the MOTL (“moon on the left”) in the second link.
The full breakdown for the motions is as follows:
MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
MOTR:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
And, before Ball4 steps in, that is all wrt the same reference frame, and same location of observer.
The curvilinear motion without changing orientation is orbit without spin.
And yet I believe you would hold that the object changing its orientation is also orbit without spin.
How is this possible, when one object has a changing orientation as it orbits, and one doesn’t? They can’t both be non-spinning.
This is correct:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655235
You just have to learn to accept that according to kinematics, the MOTL can be both spinning and not spinning. That is why, to resolve the issue, we have to go further.
The answer to the first binary choice is whether the moon as rotational angular momentum or not.
What would be your prediction if the Earth and sun disappeared?
Would the moon follow a virtually linear path spinning WRT the fixed stars, or not spinning WRT the fixed stars?
Same question applies if the Earth disappeared and the Moon orbited the Sun. Would the moon rotate in the same period as its old Earth orbit, or would the Moon now keep one face to the sun?
I know which I would say.
No idea.
barry, you wrote “I know which I would say.”, but of course you’re not going to say it, are you?
Oh, how cunning! Oh, how devious! Oh, how completely stupid!
Go on, say it. Dont be surprised if you get laughed at. It serves you right.
“No idea”
Momentum is conserved in frictionless space. The moon would spin at the same rate of its old Earth orbit.
For the record, DREMT, I would like to know if you think there is even a 0.001% possibility that if the Earth disappeared, the Moon would then orbit the Sun keeping the same face to the Sun, as if the Sun had suddenly become the new external axis about which the Moon rotated?
“You just have to learn to accept that according to kinematics, the MOTL can be both spinning and not spinning.”
Misrepresentation. Just spinning.
Because Kinematics defines spinning as rotation wrt the inertial frame.
Still no idea, barry. My thoughts on angular momentum have been made clear elsewhere:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1654967
Repeated demonstration that ignorance of science is considered a benefit.
“If physics considers a ball on a string to have spin angular momentum, when objectively it is not rotating about its own internal axis then…. I question the usefulness of discussing angular momentum”
because it empowers you to dismiss it!
I assume Nate has commented to confirm my post with the breakdown of the motions for the MOTL/MOTR is correct, since he always used to agree there were two ways of looking at each of them. Obviously all four descriptions are wrt an ECI reference frame. The I stands for Inertial.
Sorry barry, but you’re wrong again.
If Moon were in orbit around Sun, it would still not be spinning. Since Moon does not spin now, and spin angular momentum is conserved, it would still have zero spin angular momentum.
What will you try next?
Thanks, Clint – it appears you really do believe that the Moon would orbit the sun and instantly begin keeping its face to the sun.
Anyone who throws an olympic hammer knows that this is false. Once the athlete lets go the hammer it continues to spin through the air due to its rotational angular momentum. (Drag and a loose chain only lets the hammer rotate a few times – yes, BOS has rotational angular momentum)
Once released, the moon would maintain its rotational angular momentum and spin at the same rate, until the cosmic drag forces (gravity) altered its spin over a very long time.
Yes, barry, it’s often been said that the ball on a string has spin angular momentum, despite the fact that the ball is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis. That’s why I question the usefulness of discussing angular momentum.
Something that physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis when it moves, like the ball on a string, is not then rotating on its own internal axis when it moves.
Simple as that.
As to why it spins when the string is cut, or let go, I always defer to Tesla:
"The rotation [about its own internal axis on release] is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different."
Those tangential velocities of the parts of the body thrown off are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, prior to the string being cut.
> Anyone who throws an olympic hammer knows that this is false.
Or anyone who would do the Pole Dance Experiment.
When will Puffman try?
“That’s why I question the usefulness of discussing angular momentum.”
Strange, because this is what would determine which of your two options (lunar internal/external axis) is correct.
If no rotational angular momentum, then the moon is not spinning. If there is rotational angular momentum, then the moon is spinning on its own axis.
Is it not useful to consider because nailing that down would remove one of the options?
Or why is it not useful?
Tesla…
“Virtually all satellites route in like manner and the probability, that the acceleration or retardation of their axial motions if they ever existed should come to a stop precisely at a definite angular velocity, is infinitesimal…”
… missed the class on tidal locking. 🙂
“I always defer to Tesla”
The maverick view? Okey doke.
I defer to Newton.
“Or why is it not useful?”
Are you kidding? For the reasons I explained.
Consider an even more concrete example than the ball on a string. Just draw a small chalk circle towards the edge on the top of a rotating merry-go-round platform. The platform begins rotating. Are the contents of the chalk circle rotating about their own internal axis just because the platform is rotating!? Should we consider the contents of the chalk circle to possess their own spin angular momentum!? I mean…where does it end? How many chalk circles could you draw? Do they all have their own separate spin angular momentum!?
barry, an “Olympic hammer” is physically attached before release.
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics, as usual.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
“For the reasons I explained.”
But the moon is not attached to the Earth like a rigid body.
That’s why the question of rotational angular momentum is particularly determinate here, where it is not with particles of a rigid body rotating.
There are a couple of things (beside Newton’s and NASA’s opinion on the matter) that confirm the Moon is spinning.
1) Libration – If the moon behaved like a BoS, we would not see longitudinal libration.
2) Most moons in the solar system are tidally locked. I will agree with Tesla that the chances they began life like that are infinitesimal. They were spinning at different rates when they came developed orbit with the planets. Many of them also exhibit longitudinal libration, but at different rates to the moon. This variation reinforces the notion that all the tidally locked moons are spinning. As their periods and orbits differ, so too do their librational characteristics.
“That’s why the question of rotational angular momentum is particularly determinate here, where it is not with particles of a rigid body rotating.”
How exactly do you propose to determine if the moon does or does not have spin angular momentum? Does the chalk circle have spin angular momentum?
1) Strictly speaking, libration in longitude is outside the scope of my points 1) – 4):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
So I shouldn’t really be discussing that yet. However, what I will say is that the ball on a string is only a model of “orbit without spin”, it is not intended to model the exact motion of the moon with all its intricacies.
2) Search for “tidal locking” on this page. We have already discussed this.
It’s pretty simple, isn’t it?
If the moon’s rotation is locked to the barycentre we shouldn’t see it wag its head, regardless of changes in the velocity of orbit.
Axial rotation explains that phenomenon very neatly, as the orbit is irregular while the spin is regular.
Is anyone arguing that the “moon’s rotation is locked to the barycentre”?
Perhaps libration in longitude does settle the issue, perhaps it doesn’t. Once all “Spinners” have agreed on points 1) – 4), maybe we can find out once and for all.
What is ‘outside the scope’ of DREMTs discussion? Anything that debunks his narrative!
“Axial rotation explains that phenomenon very neatly, as the orbit is irregular while the spin is regular.”
And we have no need for those determined to remain ignorant, to agree.
When Nate writes short comments, they are usually just snide little remarks, if memory serves me correctly.
> an “Olympic hammer” is physically attached before release.
And the Moon was “attached” to the Earth before release.
Is it possible that Puffman finally gets it?
"Perhaps libration in longitude does settle the issue, perhaps it doesn’t."
Of course, if libration in longitude did settle the moon issue, then obviously my point 3) would have to be correct, since reference frames wouldn’t have resolved the moon issue.
Indeed, Nate. When Graham D. Warner enters a discussion about the motion of the Moon spin, he declares the motion of the Moon beyond the scope of discussion.
Well, the so-called “moon debate” has never really been about the moon, but that fact goes over most people’s heads.
The debate about the motion of the Moon has never been about the motion of the Moon…
Graham D. Warner is a gaslighting genius.
It’s about what “orbit without spin” is, which of course affects all orbiting objects, not just the moon…but more than that, it’s really just about how inculcation can stop people from thinking clearly. Which is particularly relevant to the AGW nonsense. Whoever is right, overall, on the issue, there have been so many examples of apparently intelligent, educated people saying ridiculous things (like the chalk circle is rotating on its own internal axis) along the way, that it really has illuminated how damaging the whole system can be.
The chalk circle on spinning mgr is inertially rotating on its own internal axis & the chalk circle is not rotating on its own internal axis as observed in the accelerated frame wrt the mgr at the same time. All motion is relative.
Some people are just more intelligent & educated than DREMT.
You are a living example of how messed up it all is, Ball4. Thanks for that.
“Well, the so-called moon debate has never really been about the moon, but that fact goes over most peoples heads.”
Good example of revisionist history.
It is revised to fit whatever the current narrative is.
“Its about what orbit without spin is, which of course affects all orbiting objects, not just the moonbut more than that, its really just about how inculcation can stop people from thinking clearly. ”
So it’s about semantics. Specifically the personal semantics of a few contrarians, who decided that they get to make their own definitions that differ from what science and engineering uses.
Why do they choose those definitions? No one knows, since they offer no sound science rationale.
I’ll assume Nate was telling Ball4 how silly he’s being.
“Is anyone arguing that the “moon’s rotation is locked to the barycentre”?
I assumed non-spinners thought so, as this is the same point around which the Moon orbits. So if the Moon is rotating about an external axis (separate from its orbit), that would be it.
The eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit is yet another reason why the BoS is a poor model for it. But it does lend a bunch of support to the notion that the moon is spinning on its own axis with rotational angular momentum that keeps that spin regular while the orbit varies. Thus, we get longitudinal libration and see more of the moon’s eastern and Western hemisphere than if its rotation was purely a function of its orbit.
The ball on a string is not meant to be a model of the moon’s exact motion, barry. I don’t know how many times Clint R has had to say that, but it’s getting ridiculous. It is a model of “orbit without spin”, generally.
Barry didnt get the memo about revising the history of the debate to remove the Moon from it.
Luckily many of us remember the history quite well, and can verify that for many years this debate has been all about our Moon.
The loony TEAM consistently argued:
-The Moon doesnt spin (rotate) on its own axis.
-It just appears to.
-Its tilted axis of rotation is just an illusion, and doesnt matter.
-Libration of the Moon is just an illusion, and doesnt matter.
-The Moon’s orbit IS a rotation around an external axis, just like the MOTL.
-A Ball on a string (BOS) IS a good model for the Moon’s orbit.
-A rigid rotating rod with a moon attached IS a model for the actual Moon’s orbit. (The VIDEO says so).
But now, quite recently, the TEAM has the chutzpah to claim:
‘it has never really been about the moon’.
Oh and the BOS no longer a Model for our Moon’s orbit.
The Video, we’ll keep showing it, but its no longer really about the Moon.
Of course, this historical revision is a total sham.
…ball on a string is not meant to be a model of the moon’s exact motion, barry. I don’t know how many times Clint R has had to say that, but it’s getting ridiculous. It is a model of “orbit without spin”, generally.
So the BoS isn’t a good model for the moon?
Ok, so what is the new position that non-spinners take?
Is the moon orbiting without spin?
Or is there a new model for the supposedly non-spinning moon?
And how does this model account for longitudinal libration?
The idea is that “orbit without spin” is motion like the ball on a string, generally. Thus, the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis, but also the Earth is rotating on its own internal axis 365.25 times per orbit, and not 366.25 times per orbit. In other words, the concept of “orbit without spin” being motion like the ball on a string affects all orbiting objects, not just the moon. Thus, the debate transcends the moon.
“The idea is that orbit without spin is motion like the ball on a string, generally”
“Thus, the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis”
Usually the word ‘Thus’ implies that the next statement FOLLOWS from the prior one.
Not here. An not with these guys.
Their statements don’t FOLLOW from any facts or sound logic. And often contradict their previous statements.
Such as “ball on a string is not meant to be a model of the moons exact motion
barry, I’m not having another long back and forth with you when Nate’s squawking away in the background, again. Have fun asking me questions I’ve already told you I’m not going to answer until all "Spinners" agree on points 1) – 4).
“Ive already told you Im not going to answer until all “Spinners” agree on points 1) 4).”
Demanding agreement where there is none aint debate. But it is pathe.tic.
Debate is about making logical, factual arguments that convince people. You obviously havent done that.
Oh well.
"Have fun asking me questions I’ve already told you I’m not going to answer until all "Spinners" agree on points 1) – 4)…"
…Nate agrees on point 2), by the way. Or, at least, he always used to. He always used to agree that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was motion like the MOTL, and not the MOTR. He’d always point out that motion like the MOTL could also be described as "curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis", as if I was ever actually hiding that…but he’d agree on point 2). Wonder if he still does?
Bindidon, Norman and (I think) Swanson all agree on point 1). Everyone should agree on point 3) – especially you, barry, as you seem to think the issue is resolved by libration in longitude, which would mean the issue isn’t resolved by reference frames. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with point 4).
Unfortunately, "Spinners" just can’t argue amongst themselves until all are in agreement on the four points. Shame.
“the Earth is rotating on its own internal axis 365.25 times per orbit, and not 366.25 times per orbit.”
How do we know that? Evidence?
How do you then explain Uranus orbit and rotation?
“Uranus makes a complete orbit around the Sun (a year in Uranian time) in about 84 Earth years (30,687 Earth days). Uranus is the only planet whose equator is nearly at a right angle to its orbit, with a tilt of 97.77 degrees.”
It’s rotational axis is nearly in the ecliptic plane, always pointing to the same stars, and NOT turning as the planet orbits, as could be expected if the orbit involved a rotation of the planet around the sun.
If that wasn’t a comment saying he disagrees with point 2), I think we can safely assume he still agrees with it. Excellent!
Well, I’m glad that we can all agree that the Ball-on-String is not a good model for the motion of the Moon.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner will update his video?
It’s been stated that the ball on a string was not meant to be a model of the moon’s exact motion since the beginning of the debate, but never mind. I guess some people are really, really bad at paying attention to what others say.
The ball on a string is intended to be a model of "orbit without spin", (or "orbital motion", or simply "orbit"), one of the two motions that is under discussion. As in, it actually shows what "orbital motion" is. The string represents gravity. It acts through the CoM of the ball.
If "orbit without spin" is as per the ball on a string, then the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and the Earth rotates 365.25 times per orbit, rather than 366.25 times. It’s a conditional statement. One follows from the other. So the question has always really been, is "orbit without spin" correctly modelled by the ball on a string? Not "does the moon rotate on its own internal axis"? It goes beyond the moon, because it obviously affects all orbiting objects.
So that’s why Clint R is continuously asking "Spinners" if they have a model for "orbit without spin" which supports their view. As in, something that represents what they think "orbital motion" is. For the "Spinners" view to make any sense, it has to be something moving like the MOTR. It has to actually possess qualities that in some way connect to the idea of what "orbital motion" involves. There’s got to be something to represent gravity, for instance. It also has to not be spinning. That would seem obvious, but the examples "Spinners" have thus far come up with, are objectively spinning! Like the yo-yo with a frictionless axle…
“Everyone should agree on point 3) especially you, barry, as you seem to think the issue is resolved by libration in longitude,”
There are multiple lines of evidence for the Spinner model.
To suggest that one of these (libration) somehow eliminates the other lines of evidence is nonsensical.
The non-spinners define SPIN such that a viewer looking at the Moon from Earth will see a non-spinning Moon.
They accomplish this by defining SPIN as rotation RELATIVE to the rotating line between the Earth and the Moon.
Plainly, this is defining SPIN as rotation relative to a rotating reference frame. Clint made this clear.
Whereas the spinners simply define SPIN as absolute rotation of the body wrt to the stars.
So to declare that reference frames don’t matter is to be disingenous.
So the model of a BoS is not a good model for the Moon, but…
“The idea is that ‘orbit without spin’ is motion like the ball on a string, generally. Thus, the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.”
I get the concept, but we just agreed – in fact you despaired people not paying attention – to the idea that BoS is a poor model for the Moon.
“In other words, the concept of ‘orbit without spin’ being motion like the ball on a string affects all orbiting objects, not just the moon. Thus, the debate transcends the moon.”
But BoS is not a good model for the moon. It certainly doesn’t account for observe lunar libration, which is neatly explained by the moon spinning at a regular rate while its orbit varies – a point that you only seem to be able to wave away instead of deal with. Rhetorically, your recent comments seem purpose-built to side-step a rather germane point – now you want to “transcend” considerations of lunar motion altogether.
“I’ve already told you I’m not going to answer until all “Spinners” agree on points 1) 4).”
More ultimatums to just agree with you? Thanks for the chat, then.
“So the question has always really been, is ‘orbit without spin’ correctly modelled by the ball on a string?”
the answer is no. The moon’s rotation is NOT tied to its orbit as the ball’s is. The BoS rotation is characteristic of a rigid body motion, the moon’s rotation is not. ‘Orbit’ has a precise meaning, muddled by this analogy, and the moon is free to spin at a rate untethered to its orbit, while the ball is not free to spin at a different rate to that which is locked by the string. Some moons in the solar system are not tidally locked to their planets.
barry, if you “Spinners” don’t have the integrity to debate each other on the points you disagree with each other about, then the issue is never going to get resolved. Not my problem.
You still don’t understand that the ball on a string is not meant to be a model that accounts for every minute detail of the moon’s orbit? Not my problem.
You still don’t understand that the ball on a string is simply a model of “orbit without spin”, and what that means? Not my problem.
“Spinners” still don’t have a model of “orbit without spin”? Not my problem.
“…the ball is not free to spin at a different rate to that which is locked by the string”
The ball is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis, barry. Point 1). If you disagree, argue with Bindidon, Norman, or Swanson.
“As in, something that represents what they think “orbital motion” is.”
Sure, really simple. Just it look up in any dictionary. Don’t know why anyone would find this difficult.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/orbit
“noun
the curved path, usually elliptical, taken by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.
the usual course of one’s life or range of one’s activities.
SEE MORE
verb (used with object)
to move or travel around in an orbital or elliptical path:
The earth orbits the sun once every 365.25 days.
to send into orbit, as a satellite.
verb (used without object)
to go or travel in an orbit.”
Helpful.
https://youtu.be/j91XTV_p9pc
”
@stephenhunter6507
4 years ago
wow, I learned more in 8 minutes on this topic than in 8 days reading about this in school. Darn public school education.
@clitcommander6946
I love how you explained this to me like Im dumb because that sir I am, good science too you”
I suspect, whatever it was Nate said, we still don’t have the "Spinner’s" physical model of "orbit without spin".
Demonstrating the general principle that when one ignores the opponent’s argument, your side of the argument appears to be the ‘winner’.
barry, when you’re up…if you could provide that physical model of the "Spinner" version of "orbit without spin", that would be great. If not, don’t bother replying.
> If a car orbiting a track
Mr. Mr. Asshat should not be allowed to drive on a highway.
"Mr. Mr. Asshat"
I thought Gordon suggested "Sir"? Not going to call him that, I take it…
Graham D. Warner once again butts in where he does not belong.
Sorry to butt in on your serious, adult business of calling Gordon "Mr. Mr. Asshat".
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
I’m also sorry that butting in on your serious, adult business of calling Gordon "Mr. Mr. Asshat" has led you to question your own sanity.
Graham D. Warner always keeps gaslighting, in the end.
“Graham D. Warner always keeps gaslighting, in the end.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
0.59 is not one half!
b,
I’m glad you know that. According to the peculiar mathematician Gavin Schmidt, 0.38 is more than one half!
Swenson,
Gavin Schmidt never said anything like that.
My advice for you is to stay out of Casinos, they will take your money home.
I note you did not respond to my point.
Child bob, 0.59 is one half of 1.18.
Clint,
So the whole Moon’s surface area is 1.18 times the area of one half.
Do respond to the point I was making, and try not to be less intelligent than a jellyfish.
Clint R won’t respond, bob, since you took 3 days to reply to his message and he’ll have now moved on. Probably not even aware you’ve said anything.
So that means I won the argument.
I am not on your clock or Clints’ clock.
“So that means I won the argument”
If people don’t see your comments, so don’t respond? Um…no, bob.
Is Graham D. Warner’s Puffman’s secretary?
bob’s secretary turns up.
Another example of Robertson’s primitive mix of arrogance and ignorance:
” As we have both noted, there is no instrument capable of accurately measuring the full spectrum of reflected solar radiation. ”
What a load of nonsense.
Here is a hint of real work:
High-albedo roof coatings for reducing building cooling needs
A.L. Pisello, in Eco-Efficient Materials for Mitigating Building Cooling Needs, 2015
…
9.2.1 Solar reflectance
” The solar reflectance (SR) is the surface capability to reflect solar radiation back to the hemisphere where the solar source is located, integrated over the entire solar spectrum, including specular and diffuse reflection components.
In fact, most of the solar energy arriving to the terrestrial level is between 300 and 2500 nm, and its intensity varies with varying wavelengths in the solar spectrum, with a peak around 600 nm. The ultraviolet region holds about 5% of the energy. The visible region contains about 44% of the solar energy, and more than 50% is irradiated by the solar source in the infrared region of the spectrum (Ferrari et al., 2013).
The radiation arriving to several areas in our planet depends on atmosphere conditions and perturbation, air humidity, and differential absorрtion of water, ozone, and carbon dioxide.
Important variations occur depending on the air mass, which in turn depends on the period of the year and the terrestrial location (Ferrari et al., 2013).
Therefore, solar reflectance is a property that is largely dependent on the reference solar spectrum used for the calculations, as analyzed in Ferrari et al. (2013), and it is a number varying from 0 to 1.
Because a large part of the solar radiation is in the nonvisible regions of the spectrum, a high-albedo coating is not just a light color surface but should be able to reflect the solar radiation in the overall spectrum. ”
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
Binny,
You could always scuttle the “deniers” by describing the GHE.
Then you wouldnt have to waste your valuable time babying on about everything else.
How about it?
And what kind of detector are they using to gather the data? I am quite familiar with semiconductors detectors and I know of no semiconductor that can absorb across the immense spectrum of light and EM in general.
They have to use tricks, then claim the tricks are not a problem. And the gullible fall for it.
So they use more than one kind of detector.
b,
“So they use more than one kind of detector”
Indeed. Is that all you’ve got, or are you implying that it is possible to measure the total energy emitted or absorbed by an object?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I suppose that’s why cultists like you never actually claim anything, just make slimy implications.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I did not make an extraordinary claim.
Would you like a comprehensive list of the energy or electromagnetic radiation detectors I have used?
You have claimed the Earth has cooled since it formed, now which detector was used to make that claim?
Hmmm, me thinks you don’t know.
The incommensurable gap between the arrogant ignoramus Robertson and the thoroughly educated engineer Anna Laura Pisello
We compare
” They have to use tricks, then claim the tricks are not a problem. And the gullible fall for it. ”
to
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4527-6444
*
What could you expect from a zero dot zero like Robertson, who credulously follows the most stoopid contrarian blogs who are for him the major authority he permanently appeals to?
*
The very best way to understand Robertson’s distance to anything having to do with engineering is his latest dummb diatribe in reply to what I recently did:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1652759
” Last time I looked, UAH designated LT as lower troposphere. It would seem that Binny cant tell the difference between LT = lower troposphere and LS = lower stratosphere. Perhaps that explains why his graphs fail to mimic those of UAH. ”
This is really incredible.
Robertson isn’t even able to download UAH’s simplest data, the monthly zonal/regional data provided by Roy Spencer for all four atmospheric layers, e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-lower-trop
and to present any column of that data in a graph; let alone would he be ever able to process any data by his own, beginning with the simplest of all: UAH’s 2.5 degree grid.
*
Robertson never and never has been an engineer, let alone a ‘researcher’ (OMG).
Robertson is only able
– to post endless, boring, useless texts whose relevance decreases at least with the 4th power of their size;
– to polemically discredit and denigrate those he is unable to technically contradict;
– to disgustingly name call people "cheâting SÔB", "âsshôle" and the like.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Robertson is only able
to post endless, boring, useless texts whose relevance decreases at least with the 4th power of their size;
to polemically discredit and denigrate those he is unable to technically contradict;
to disgustingly name call people “cheting SB”, “sshle” and the like.”
I am aware that you object to freedom of expression, but I am curious as to your reasons. Do you only object to freedom of expression when it is exercised by people with whom you disagree, or do your objections apply to yourself as well?
If the latter, from whom do you accept guidance on what you are allowed to say?
Have you any evidence that you are not just a fanatical GHE cultist, who can’t even describe the GHE? No?
I didnt think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UenfnpM1Eso
US Abstains from UN Resolution on Israel; Spencer Klavan and Aristotle
That gets into the topic of the connection of science and religion
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket tested & Starship readied for 3rd flight News from the Press Site
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g4xlemRtu8
It’s couple weeks old, but lots of stuff, I didn’t hear about.
Annotated Bibliography for Climate: The Movie
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/26/annotated-bibliography-for-climate-the-movie/
–By Andy May
Many viewers of Climate: The Movie have asked for more information on the topics discussed. In response, I selected the following 70 key statements from the movie and provide references and context for the statements here.
…–
good one gb….some quotes…
“-It is quite possible that Earths Ice Ages are related to the solar systems path through the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy as proposed by Nir Shaviv.”
***
I have always wondered about this. As our galaxy passes through or near space detritus, does that detritus affect solar energy? For example, if we passed through a huge dust cloud or a hydrogen cloud, neither may be dense enough to block the Sun outright but might cut solar radiation enough to produce an ice age.
—
-No matter if the science of global warming is all phonyclimate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking to the editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998.
****
No comment necessary, we have some serious ijits in politics in Canada.
Re: “…as proposed by Nir Shaviv.
I have been aware of general idea, though couldn’t have said, I knew the name, Nir Shaviv, was related to it, for quite long time. But more recently, comparatively, I became aware of idea that star system have and will pass pretty close to Sol- which could have a much larger climate effect upon Earth. Also a thing like a close SuperNova explosion in the past is going to leave a mark.
But I don’t think there any strong evidence that Earth has ever had a snowball global climate. And if there wasn’t something like snowball global climate in the past, then it leaves me say that right now, we are in a pretty cold Ice Age.
And right now, I am not aware of any kind current galactic effect, which making us, so cold.
Complete comment from Ball4 –
“DREMT remains incorrect but a curved road on Earth IS rotating, Clint R. Funny, even DREMT wrote the curved road is doing so.”
This is from the same mentally afflicted cultist who wrote “There is a GHE once greenhouses were built.”
And presumably a car effect, a skyscraper effect, a bridge effect . . .
An obvious nutter.
Entropic man says:
March 26, 2024 at 5:01 PM
Still not right.
“Insolation, as calculated from satellite data is 1360/4=340W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere before albedo is subtracted. That is well below your predicted 444W/m^2.
Outward longwave radiation is measured and calculated from satellite data as 240W/m^2. That is also well below your predicted value of 444W/m^2.”
–
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
When comparing with the not reflected SW 444W/m^2, and the IR emitted 444W/m^2, which are (for equilibrium) the same, you should not average 960W/m^2 by dividing it by 4.
Now you see that 444W/m^2 is much less than your predicted 960W/m^2.
–
–
The incoming solar EM energy averaging is a mistaken thought experiment
340W/m^2 reaches Earth from the Sun.
Ok,
1360W/m /4 = 340W/m^2
But we cannot average the perpendicular to the planet cros-section cycle the incoming solar flux of So =1360W/m^2 , because there is neither solar radiation, nor Albedo at the planet dark-side area.
“Not a problem. Just accept that the solar flux and albedo on the night side of the Earth are zero. Then calculate the averages as usual.”
–
Of course, I can do that.
But it is a mistaken theoretical thought experiment.
Solar EM energy doesn’t “go” to the planet dark-side area. It is the planet rotating, and, while rotating, there is always half of the globe faces the sun.
Solar energy only interacts with the matter it is fallen on, solar energy doesn’t interact when the surface is out of view, solar energy doesn’t interact when the surface is on the planet’s dark -side area.
Thus, we cannot average the incident on a planet solar energy’s interaction result with the planet surface matter, we are not justified to average it over the entire planet surface, because solar EM energy interacts with surface only on the solar lit side area.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, once again let’s do your numbers.
First insolation using the dayside only, ignoring the nightside.
1360W/m^2 insolation becomes 1360/2 =680W/m^2 averaged across the dayside.
In your version the surface absorbs 444W/m^2 then albedo including SR =680-444 = 236W/m2 or 236/640*100 =37%.
The conventional calculation gives 640W/m2 insolation, 200W albedo and 640-200=440W/m^2 absorbed.
Well done. You’ve a very good fit between prediction and observation for incoming radiation.
However there is not much difference between your albedo and mine (236 versus 200), so your claim that the satellites ignore a lot of specular reflection disappears.
I haveto go back to work, so the rest will follow in a few hours.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“1360W/m^2 insolation becomes 1360/2 =680W/m^2 averaged across the dayside.”
We are not justified the incoming solar EM energy averaging across the dayside.
“In your version the surface absorbs 444W/m^2 then albedo including SR =680-444 = 236W/m2 or 236/640*100 =37%.”
The 444W/m^2 is the not reflected solar EM energy with the reference to the total 1360W/m^2 insolation perpendicular to planetary cros-section cycle.
1360W/m^2 – 444W/m^2 = 916W/m^2 (is the reflected portion diffuselly +specularly).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We are not justified the incoming solar EM energy averaging across the dayside. ”
Why not?
“The 444W/m^2 is the not reflected solar EM energy with the reference to the total 1360W/m^2 insolation perpendicular to planetary cros-section cycle.”
That sentence makes no sense in English. Perhaps you could rephrase.
EM,
Fairly pointless, as the fact is that during the night, all the heat of the is lost to space, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
No complicated formulas or equations needed.
They are likely to lead you up the garden path, anyway. The great British (or Irish or Scottish) physicist, Lord Kelvin, partially agreed with me (obviously a very clever chap), and calculated furiously to establish the age of the age of the Earth, based on heat loss measurements, and reasonable assumptions.
I can’t be bothered. Kelvin was wrong, so I have saved myself a lot of time and effort.
Your calculations are wrong, if they depend on belief in the expertise of fanatical GHE cultists. You are free to waste your time as you see for, of course. Just as I am free to snigger at the time-wasters who spend their time doing calculations rejecting reality!
It seems to me that calculations which depend on the operations of a GHE which cannot be described, are a complete and utter waste of time. Others may disagree.
Solar EM energy at the instant of incidence on the planet surface what it does is to interact with the surface’s matter.
At every point of incidence solar EM energy produces at that point the EM/surface interaction result.
The EM/surface interaction result is localized at that very point of EM energy incidence.
We cannot average the incident on a planet solar EM energy over some planet surface areas, because solar EM energy interacts with surface only at the point of incidence.
Because when the incident solar EM energy averaging, the new EM/surface interaction layout changes the actual EM/surface interaction result.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We cannot average the incident on a planet solar EM energy over some planet surface areas, because solar EM energy interacts with surface only at the point of incidence.”
Nah.
As an approximation, the average flux will give the average temperature. It will do just fine at the rotation rate of the Earth, because the T oscillation is relatively small.
“solar EM energy interacts with surface only at the point of incidence.”
Ignores the heat transport from the equator to the poles on Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-Cho/publication/45884771/figure/fig2/AS:307404794286081@1450302422666/Earths-energy-balance-The-Earth-absorbs-more-sunlight-at-the-equator-than-the-poles.png
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“As an approximation, the average flux will give the average temperature. It will do just fine at the rotation rate of the Earth, because the T oscillation is relatively small.”
Please explain what it is “just fine” and what it is “the T oscillation”.
–
” solar EM energy interacts with surface only at the point of incidence.
Ignores the heat transport from the equator to the poles on Earth.””
–
Earth absorbs only a small portion of the incident ~1360 W/m^2 as a heat. Some of that heat gets transported to the poles.
The planet average surface temperature is determined by the Radiative energy balance Energy in = Energy out.
Earth’s poles participation in Earth’s Radiative energy balance is very insignificant.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earths poles participation in Earths Radiative energy balance is very insignificant.”
The graph clearly shows that the transport of heat from the lower to the higher latitudes is significant.
Thus your statement that “solar EM energy interacts with surface only at the point of incidence.”
is clearly incorrect.
The T oscillation I am referring to is the diurnal oscillation seen at each location on Earth.
Since it is not a very large fractional change, in Kelvin units, it is a good approximation to use the average T to calculate the average emitted flux.
Theoretically, a planet with zero Albedo (a = 0).
The diffuselly reflected a*S = = 0*S =0 W/m^2
1). When it is a planet (a = 0) with rough surface Φ = 1,
Φ(1 -a)*S = 1*(1 -0)*S = S W/m^2
the not reflected equals to the incident.
2). When it is a planet (a = 0) with smooth surface Φ = 0,47,
Φ(1 -a)*S = 0,47(1 -0)*S = 0,47*S W/m^2
the not reflected is 0,47*S W/m^2
and the specularly reflected is S -0,47*S =0,53*S W/m^2.
–
In solar system planets and moons are either with rough surface
Φ =1, or with a smooth surface Φ =0,47
Only Triton’s surface is somewhere in between (0,47 < Φ < 1)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What is S?
S -it is the solar flux on planet W/m^2.
For planet Earth S = So =1360 W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Theoretically, a planet with zero Albedo (a = 0) … reflects nothing. Period. That is the definition of Bond albedo.
From Wikipedia
Sample albedos
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[6]
Open ocean 0.06[7]
Worn asphalt 0.12[6]
Conifer forest,
summer 0.08,[8] 0.09 to 0.15[9]
Deciduous forest 0.15 to 0.18[9]
Bare soil 0.17[10]
Green grass 0.25[10]
Desert sand 0.40[11]
New concrete 0.55[10]
Ocean ice 0.50 to 0.70[10]
Fresh snow 0.80[10]
Aluminum 0.85[12][13]
Tim, Fresh asphalt a =0,04 it is almost a zero albedo.
Do you claim fresh asphalt … reflects nothing?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From Wikipedia
”
Two common optical albedos that are used in astronomy are the (V-band) geometric albedo (measuring brightness when illumination comes from directly behind the observer) and the Bond albedo (measuring total proportion of electromagnetic energy reflected). Their values can differ significantly, which is a common source of confusion.
Planet Geometric Bond
Mercury 0.142 [73] 0.088 [74] or 0.068
Venus 0.689 [73] 0.76 [75] or 0.77
Earth 0.434 [73] 0.306 [76]
Mars 0.170 [73] 0.250 [77]
Jupiter 0.538 [73] 0.5030.012 [78]
Saturn 0.499 [73] 0.342 [79]
Uranus 0.488 [73] 0.300 [80]
Neptune 0.442 [73] 0.290 [81] ”
–
–
“the Bond albedo (measuring total proportion of electromagnetic energy reflected).”
Is it possible planet Mercury a =0.088 [74] or 0.068 reflects only ~ 9% or ~ 7% of the incident solar energy?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Tim, Fresh asphalt a =0,04 it is almost a zero albedo.
Do you claim fresh asphalt reflects nothing?”
No. I claim it reflects 4% of incoming solar radiation. Look at it — it is quite black!
“Is it possible planet Mercury a =0.088 [74] or 0.068 reflects only ~ 9% or ~ 7% of the incident solar energy?”
Sure! Why not? There are plenty of dark minerals that look close to black. And don’t forget that ~ 50% of solar energy is IR, and many minerals reflect ~ 5% of IR (emissivity ~ 0.95).
Do YOU claim that no astronomers know how to measure light?
Tim,
“Open ocean 0.06[7]”
Does open ocean reflect only 6% of 1360 W/m^2 in a cloudless day?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Related…
Emotional trigger alert!
The unprecedented Pacific Northwest heatwave of June 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36289-3.pdf
1/ In late June 2021 a heatwave of unprecedented magnitude impacted the Pacific Northwest region of Canada and the United States.
2/ Many locations broke all-time maximum temperature records by more than 5 C, and the Canadian national temperature record was broken by 4.6 C, with a new record temperature of 49.6 C.
3/ The western heat dome was the deadliest weather event in Canada to date. The BC Coroners Service confirmed that there were 619 heat-related deaths during the heat dome.
4/ Other impacts included mass-mortalities of marine life, reduced crop and fruit yields, river flooding from rapid snow and glacier melt, and a substantial increase in wildfires -the latter contributing to landslides in the months following.
A,
Thanks for the weather report.
Maybe the hot weather in 2021 was unprecedented for 2021, but –
“By summers end, upward of 5,000 Americans and 1,100 Canadians had died from heat-related causes or drowned while trying to cool off in rivers and lakes.”- 1936.
I do hope you haven’t alarmed yourself unnecessarily.
Don’t worry about the mythical GHE – it won’t hurt you.
Ark, all global warming you’re finding is natural.
You know that, right?
Well, it’s not supernatural.
bob…do you have a note from your Mom, explaining your recent absence from the blog?
Mr. Mr. Asshat takes his role of Hall Monitor Very Srsly.
I don’t have a note from my Mom, she wasn’t much of a note writer,
Have you found any measurements of the frequency of electrons in their molecular orbits yet?
Or even in atomic orbitals?
Kindergarten level bad weather Boogeyman
So, near-bottom hypoxia in the coastal ocean is a “bad weather Boogeyman”? Tell me more.
I’ve never seen anybody be so cavalier about seafloor oxygen deficiency.
You have bee thoroughly brainwashed , except in you case only light rinse was required
So, you have nothing on near-bottom hypoxia in the coastal ocean then. Do not despair, here’s a free lesson for you:
Near-bottom hypoxia in the coastal ocean represents a significant environmental stressor with wide-ranging consequences for marine ecosystems, fisheries, and biogeochemical processes.
The proximal causes of near-bottom hypoxia in the coastal ocean are typically related to complex interactions between physical, chemical, and biological factors.
Climate change can exacerbate near-bottom hypoxia in coastal oceans through various mechanisms. Warming temperatures can intensify stratification and reduce oxygen solubility in seawater. Changes in precipitation patterns can alter nutrient inputs and runoff dynamics, affecting nutrient loading and eutrophication. Additionally, sea level rise can modify coastal circulation patterns and increase residence times, exacerbating hypoxic conditions.
Thank you for asking. There’s more where that came from.
P.s.: yes, I do have a very big brain, but not so big that you can’t handle it. Don’t be intimidated; I’ll be gentle with you.
A,
You wrote –
“yes, I do have a very big brain,. . . ”
Bearing in mind that climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and statistics have no physical influence at all, tell me that you cannot see anything wrong with –
“Climate change can exacerbate near-bottom hypoxia in coastal oceans through various mechanisms. Warming temperatures can intensify stratification and reduce oxygen solubility in seawater. Changes in precipitation patterns can alter nutrient inputs and runoff dynamics, affecting nutrient loading and eutrophication. Additionally, sea level rise can modify coastal circulation patterns and increase residence times, exacerbating hypoxic conditions.”
Yes indeed, the effects you quote are known, and have nothing to do with any mythical GHE.
The authors (all 17 of them) don’t seem terribly bright – the title of this piece of woke nonsense – “The unprecedented Pacific Northwest heat- wave of June 2021” says it all.
All weather is unprecedented, in one way. No two days have the same weather, do they? Today’s is different from any that has ever occurred before!
Maybe the authors really meant to say something useful, but were too inept to do so? At least, they studiously avoided mentioning the mythical greenhouse effect, so that’s something.
Just another weather report.
My dearest Eben, heres just a small taste of my ginormous brain for you to hold you over until we meet again…
Yes, there is evidence to suggest that near-bottom hypoxia in the coastal ocean played a role in some of the major mass extinctions in Earth’s geologic history. One of the most notable examples is the end-Permian mass extinction, also known as the “Great Dying,” which occurred approximately 252 million years ago. During this event, up to 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.
The end-Permian extinction was associated with a massive release of greenhouse gases, leading to global warming and ocean acidification. Elevated temperatures and increased stratification of the oceans would have reduced oxygen exchange between surface and bottom waters, creating oxygen-depleted conditions near the seabed.
As I said before, there’s more where that came from. All you have to do is ask.
Ark believes: The end-Permian extinction was associated with a massive release of greenhouse gases, leading to global warming and ocean acidification.”
Ark, calm down. Take a deep breath.
If that were even true, it would prove it was all natural.
There were no ice cream stores back then….
Sure, one event was natural– that proves all events are natural!
Some people are just not good at logic. No fix for that.
Correct child Nate.
Natural events are natural.
Cranks are cranks.
We have not seen the western heat dome since, nor had we seen one before. NOAA put it down to a La Nina thingy. The odd thing, last spring, was a mini heat wave that occurred unexpectedly in June. By mid-July,it was summer as usual.
Another La Nina oddity I’d venture.
I followed it closely out of scientific curiosity. On the southern end, it caused temperatures to soar into the low 40C range near Portland, Oregon, but 80 miles away on the coast, it was 20C.
The heat dome was just that, a dome of hot air trapped over a north south range of about 200 miles.
Maybe Ark can explain how that could possibly be related to a trace gas in the atmosphere. It would mean that CO2 has magical properties no scientists had anticipated.
Your point 4/ is absolute bs. Other than the heat wave, and a flood in the Chilliwack area that was caused by negligence from both the Canadian and US governments, who failed to maintain river dikes, there was nothing to write home about here in BC. The flood was caused by one breach in a river separating Canada and the US at that point. Both governments knew the problem existed beforehand, of a possible breach.
It is unfortunate that anyone died from the heat but that has more to do with a lack of preparation for heat than anything. Age was a factor in the elderly people died from the heat. Again, they were inadequately advised by the government re what to do. Since then, the government has implemented warnings, and as usual, far too late.
The heat we experienced was uncomfortable due to it seemingly never ending extent, however it was nothing compared to the heat in places like Bombay, India, or even Death Valley in California. The odd part is that most of California did not experience the heat wave.
Your point 3/ is also bs. There have been far more deadly events in Canada, like the tornado that swept through Edmonton in 1987. Believe me, I’ll take 100 heat domes rather than face a severe tornado. Having lived through thunderstorms on the Canadian prairies, I can testify they are events worth avoiding.
Then there is the cold in winter on the Prairies. No one can survive outside long at -40C. People freeze to death every year and it is not deemed a tragedy because it happens so regularly.
As far as heat domes are concerned people living in the BC interior face something similar every summer. In Lytton, BC, the thermometer regularly exceeds 40C. The only peculiarity about the heat dome in question is that it extended some 500 miles from north to south, and hung around far too long.
“far more deadly events in Canada, like the tornado that swept through Edmonton in 1987”
The Edmonton tornado killed 27 people. Even you would agree that 619 > 27, no?.
anyone who claims the heat dome was the deadliest weather event in Canada should be jailed as a public nuisance.
The same thing happened with covid. The hysteria began when several thousand people died in Italy from a mysterious virus. No one cared when people were dying in Wuhan, China, it was only when it hit Europe the panic set in.
The fact was completely ignored that in Italy in 2016, 25,000 people died from the common flu. Rather than keeping our heads and objectively looking at the situation, we caved in to hysteria and allow epidemiologists to take over our democracy.
Yes, the heat was nagging during the heat dome but we carried on life as normal. At no time did I, or anyone I know, feel we were in any kind of danger. We knew to keep hydrated and to keep as cool as possible indoors using fans, etc. At no time did temps in the Vancouver area exceed the low 30C range.
If you’d given any of us the option between facing the heat dome or the Edmonton tornado, there would have been no question we’d have taken the heat dome. I was in Regina one night when a tornado touched down nearby. At the time, I was running from the parking lot at the airport terminal, hoping the person I was meeting was OK. Turned out they had diverted the flight to Moose Jaw.
Anyway, as I ran from the parking lot, the rain was flying horizontally to the ground and I had trouble maintaining balance. When I reached the terminal I was soaked down one side while the other side was dry. At the time, there had been no weather advisory and my first inkling upon leaving my apartment in the early evening of a summer night was that it was dark outside far too early. The air looked brown in colour, and I figured we were in for it.
No healthy person was in imminent danger during the heat dome, just as with covid. Only the frail and elderly died. That was a shame in itself since it came down to government advisories failing to reach those poor souls. Had they been brought into air conditioned areas they too would have survived. A friend was in his early 90s but healthy. He experienced no adverse effects so it was the extremely frail elderly who unfortunately succumbed.
I am tired of the information being spread by climate alarmists. The Premier of our province referred to the heat dome as a product of climate change, the words of a pure ijit. NOAA, a Mother of All Climate alarmists, blamed it on La Nina.
> The fact was completely ignored that in Italy
Looks like Mr. Mr. Asshat has problems with geography!
“The western heat dome was the deadliest weather event in Canada to date. The BC Coroners Service confirmed that there were 619 heat-related deaths during the heat dome.”
Is your brain even functioning? I’m sure the harsh winters suffered up there have killed far more people, both collectively and over a short period of time, similar to a singular summer. Think back to the pre-industrial era when energy use wasn’t as efficient, and people had to collect firewood and wear animal fur.
Monkey Man is being a little bitch who doesn’t know that it’s easier to protect oneself from cold than from warmth.
A,
You wrote “Geeit’s too bad that all Gordon Robertson has to offer are insults and ad hom.”
Why is it too bad?
If you disagree with something he said, it might be to your advantage to provide some verifiable facts to support your disagreement.
Otherwise you might be seen as just another fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“A,”
Why are you replying to my comment?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why are you replying to my comment?”
Why do you want to know? What mental condition leads you to think I should answer you?
You are definitely a strange one.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“-”
Are you afraid of dying of colon cancer?
Cheers.
“Are you afraid of dying of colon cancer?”
What are you babbling about, fool?
[laughing at deranged GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Colon. Cancer.
Get it?
No, not colon cancer. The joke.
Silly sock puppet.
“Are you afraid of dying of colon cancer?”
What are you babbling about, fool?
[laughing at deranged GHE cultist]
Spongebob,
“its easier to protect oneself from cold than from warmth.”
Even in the pre-industrial era? Tell me about the heating and insulation technologies available to us now versus back then, and compare their efficacy.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Monkey Man is being a little bitch . . . ”
Oooooh! How mature! You scaled the intellectual heights again!
You appear to suffer from some mental defect, whereby your connection with reality is tenuous from time to time.
Feel free to provide relevant facts, if you think I’m wrong.
Yes, that is unusual language from him. I wonder what upsets him?
Mike Flynn,
Pay attention to what Monkey Man just wrote –
“unusual language from him”
There’s a delicious ambiguity in the formulation.
Do you think it has been AI-enhanced?
Cheers.
“Do you think it has been AI-enhanced?”
What particular form of mental defect leads you to think you deserve an answer?
Try talking to yourself in a mirror. Do you think you will believe what you hear?
I could call you a dumb fuck, Willard; that, however, is reserved for very few instances. Gordon calls those instances a Homer Simpson ‘D’oh!’ moment.
You certainly could use apophasis, Monkey Man, even if you’re too young to ever heard the word.
I guess you have nothing to say about the high probability that people died more in the Canadian pre-industrial era winters than in the summer of 2021, SpongeBob.
[MONKEY MAN] Is your brain even functioning?
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] Can you go into detail
I’m not sure why you think those two statements contradict each other. ‘Heat-related’ is a vague term, which can mean the heat played a direct role or it was a contributor, small or large. If it was a small contributor to some of these deaths, then there’s additional perspective we need to consider here.
You call it feces. At least, I try to contribute to the conversation; you just insinuate, confuse, and disrupt – all the hallmarks of a typical internet tr0ll.
Monkey. Feces.
Monkey Man clearly sucks are creative writing.
No wonder he needs to juice his comments with AI!
Organ grinder’s monkey, what happened to: Best to just ignore Ark?
But I digress. What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
A,
Maybe you should at least assert something.
All I see are implications and innuendoes, and weather reports.
What are you trying to say?
I ignored your post when I first read it earlier, but you said above you have a very big brain.
Opportunity served on a gold platter!
“What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
People can’t survive -30F and below for long periods of time outside. What about European settlers, first arriving there, who were used to mild, temperate climates, attempting to build a civilization?
What was used for insulation back then? Straw? Mud? Wool? It can’t be ruled out; it’s extremely likely.
You make a very good organ grinder’s monkey. Here’s the music again: What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
A,
“You make a very good organ grinders monkey.”
You have experience as an organ grinder’s monkey, do you?
You certainly have vast experience at not being able to describe the GHE!
Maybe you need to go away and find an organ grinder to take you on again.
Have fun!
Ark,
Can you go into detail about how the deaths were attributed to the heat dome? How did the BC Coroners Service classify deaths from a heat wave?
walter,
Depending on what’s politically correct, some truths can be more truthy than others.
During the COVID outbreak in the UK, a motorcyclist who died after a motor vehicle accident was recorded as having dies as a result of COVID .
His family found out, and queried the reason given for his death as being due to COVID. The official response was that the dead rider had had COVID some months previously, and this had obviously affected his ability to avoid death whilst riding a motorcycle.
A similar thing occurred in the US.
I assume the records were eventually changed to reflect the cause (even though something else “might” have been involved – a sneeze (died due to airway malfunction), eyeball malfunction (didn’t see the vehicle that hit him in time), and so on.
All a bit tricky really – heart stops beating, you die.
walter see new post below at approx 8:15 pm
> Can you go into detail
Step 2 – Sammich Request
walter…amendment…took longer to post that thought…
see post at…March 27, 2024 at 9:34 PM
Exactly, Swenson. We have to know what is being counted and exactly how it is being counted. Health officials also told people at the time that the science was settled, despite the fact that epidemiologists were unsure as to whether the disease in the beginning could spread among humans or whether masks were effective. Masks and social distancing were ineffective in the long run.
The eminently dim Willard wrote –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monkey Man throws feces, requests sammiches.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1656253
[walterrh03’s quasi-intellectual douchebaggery] ” Ark,
Can you go into detail about how the deaths were attributed to the heat dome? How did the BC Coroners Service classify deaths from a heat wave?”
[Me] Here Let Me Google That For You
Keep watch later today.
“Im sure the harsh winters suffered up there have killed far more people”
I don’t know why you would expect that, given that humans have long known how to make fire.
Whereas, in cold climates like in Canada, homes may not have adequate cooling equipment.
“I dont know why you would expect that, given that humans have long known how to make fire.”
How helpful do you think fire is in well below 0F? The warmth provided by fire is localized; only people who are close to it will gain benefits. If you were to put a fire inside your house, you raise the risk of very poor air quality from smoke combustion.
They also had to collect firewood; if they were near sparse forests, they had to travel very far. And they would have consume a significant amount of fuel to keep their houses warm during the winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfqcT5is5fE
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Global warming fights back
https://youtu.be/PbKjmiJlXZI
Is there no end to the brain-deadness of eco-jerks? Anyone who would advocate solar farms, especially in a severe weather state like Texas, is surely not dealing with a full decks.
Attention: Entropic, the biologist.
There appears to be another load of pseudo-science making the rounds re ocean hypoxia. Hypoxia is a reference to oxygen levels so low that certain forms of life cannot breath adequately.
How does that happen in water, where one molecule is every molecule of water is oxygen? The suggesting is that water absorbs oxygen independently, something like Trenberth’s claims of missing heat being hidden in the oceans.
The only way I know of to add oxygen to water is under pressure. In that case, when the bottle is opened, bubbles of oxygen rush to the top. Do we see anything like that in ocean water, where escaping oxygen form the depths is forming bubbles and rushing to the top?
Dissolved oxygen in the oceans is about 10 parts per million. Is that enough to support fish breathing it through their gills? I think not. Although I cannot find a decent reference to this, it would seem that gills have a means of separating oxygen molecules from water molecules. Of course, that would mean fish exhaling hydrogen.
The popular opinion is that fish breath dissolved oxygen and I am calling bs on that one. I’d like to see an adequate explanation.
Gee Aye the biologist here. General comment is read stuff and don’t rely on what pre-exists in your head to make conclusions.
“How does that happen in water, where one molecule is every molecule of water is oxygen”.
The oxygen is not free for use – haem cannot bind it.
“The only way I know of to add oxygen to water is under pressure. ”
What you know is irrelevant to centuries of chemist studying these things. If you take anoxic water and expose it to plane old air, oxygen will dissolve into it at a rate dependent on partial pressures, temperature etc. This is from observation and experimentation.
” Do we see anything like that in ocean water, ”
Straw man. We don’t expect to see that as explained above. Read some basic physical chemistry texts.
“Dissolved oxygen in the oceans is about 10 parts per million.”
It is around 5-6mg/L with variation depending on salinity and temperature. Actual experiments with animals in water with different [O2] confirm that the free oxygen levels in water keep things alive.
“The popular opinion is that fish breath dissolved oxygen and I am calling bs on that one. ”
Physiologists disagree with you based multiple lines of observation and experimentation. Simply putting some O isotopes in the air above water and observing it moments later inside the animal is hard to explain in any other way.
I am not asking for yet more uncorroborated opinion, I want to see the mechanism by which enough oxygen becomes embedded in water to support acquatic life.
You claim the ‘O’ molecule in H20 is not free for use. How do we know the gills in fish cannot extract the oxygen from the water molecule? It’s done with electrolysis all the time, why can’t gills do it?
There are fish that generate electric currents like eels and some generate light. With such electrical activity available, why is electrolysis out of the question?
Cold water contains about 5 ml of pure oxygen per litre. The level is governed by Henry’s Law and is related to atmospheric pressure. Ironically, all the oxygen a fish apparently needs to survive is 5 mg/l. Is that a coincidence, or did those creating the theory conveninetly relate the two.
Hypoxia is caused, apparently, by stagnant water where the oxygen magically gets omitted. I presume that activity in the water causes the consumption of too much oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria can thrive in low oxygen conditions and I imagine the bacteria is not healthy for fish.
Ark is trying to blame the hypoxia on global warming. Ent has obviously used a nym to offer his opinion but he has not really answered my question. How do fish breath though gills? The theory is that something in their gills scrub free oxygen from the water.
I find that hard to take in, that the life of all fish is dependent on the 5ml/l contents of water due to O2 absorp-tion in water. Fish survive to great depths where the pressure would surely exclude any free oxygen from the water.
“How do fish breath though gills.”
Slightly like the mechanism some turtles use to breathe through their butts when submerged.
Fanatical GHE cultists can talk through their butts in several directions at once, and dribble crap from their mouths in all directions, so I can only conclude that nature is amazing!
Still no GHE, though.
I’ve had enough of you already. What a load of ignorant unscientific tripe.
Are you only going to believe something if you do the experiment yourself or get shrunk down to the size of an atom to observe it first hand?
If you are going to dismiss millions of hours of research simply because you don’t get it, and ignore many excellent text books that will take you through things step by step with original research cited, I see no point in further engagement.
You are the ignorant party here, an obvious dependent on appeals to authority that replaces your ability to think for yourself. You are typical of the current breed of wannabee scientists.
You also give yourself away by replying with intolerance to someone who questions your credo.
Gee aye suggests a Scottish connection and I hope not. I am a pure Scot and I represent the true Scot who is skeptical of rubbish presented under the guise of science. I have little patience for wannabee Scotsmen who would run and hide behind momma’s skirt at the first sign of bother. We have enough of those types in the blog already.
Awa ben the scullery.
Gee Aye,
You wrote –
“I see no point in further engagement.”
In that case, I wouldnt engage, if I were you.
I’m a little curious though – is there a point to your conclusion? Is somebody supposed to care?
Reality wins. Fish seem to keep living submerged in water, as do some turtles. If people can’t figure out why, the fish doesn’t care (as far as I know).
Oh well, I suppose not engaging might have him trembling in his boots, or cowering in fear.
ark…”P.s.: yes, I do have a very big brain…”.
***
Swelling of the brain from diseases such as encephalitis don’t count toward someone’s IQ quotient. Also, having a large brain does not mean the central portion is not hollow.
Besides, it’s not how big your brain may be but how you use it. Based on your postings, I would claim you don’t use it very well.
Gee…it’s too bad that all Gordon Robertson has to offer are insults and ad hom.
A,
You wrote Geeits too bad that all Gordon Robertson has to offer are insults and ad hom.
Why is it too bad?
If you disagree with something he said, it might be to your advantage to provide some verifiable facts to support your disagreement.
Otherwise you might be seen as just another fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“You wrote Geeits”
Who’s Geeits?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Whos Geeits?”
I haven’t the faintest idea. Another of your fantasies, perhaps? Geeits, Puffman, Asshat, Monkey Man, . . . .
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“Worried”
What are you braying about?
Nobody’s worried about a silly sock puppet like you!
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Whos Geeits?”
I havent the faintest idea. Another of your fantasies, perhaps? Geeits, Puffman, Asshat, Monkey Man, . . . .
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I havent the faintest idea.”
Then why did you say
?
Silly sock puppet.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Who’s Geeits?”
I havent the faintest idea. Another of your fantasies, perhaps? Geeits, Puffman, Asshat, Monkey Man, . . . .
Carry on.
Agreed, Mike Flynn –
You have no idea.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”The solar reflectance (SR) is the surface capability to reflect solar radiation back to the hemisphere where the solar source is located, integrated over the entire solar spectrum, including specular and diffuse reflection components”.
***
Binny seems to think you can take any numbers and integrate them to arrive at a scientific conclusion. Recently, he claimed that UAH no longer uses the satellite AMSU data and has resorted to the use of a formula to determine surfce temperatures.
How is the solar reflectance integrated? How is the data obtained that they are integrating? Most likely, they are using pure math based on S-B, nd are not using real data at all.
My question to Binny was about which semiconductor detectors are being used to cover the entire solar reflectance spectrum? I know of no semiconductors that can cover such a broadband spectrum with any degree of accuracy. Even in the narrow IR band, several silicon detectors have to be employed, each responding to only a portion of the IR spectrum.
The truth, according to what I have gleaned, is that scientists take license by estimating such reflectances, based on generous guesses.
” How is the solar reflectance integrated? How is the data obtained that they are integrating? Most likely, they are using pure math based on S-B, [a]nd are not using real data at all. ”
*
” The truth, according to what I have gleaned, is that scientists take license by estimating such reflectances, based on generous guesses. ”
*
As always, the most arrogant and ignorant chatterbox on this blog doubts the results of others simply because he completely lacks their scientific education and technical skills.
*
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655621
Bindidon wrote –
“As always, the most arrogant and ignorant chatterbox on this blog doubts the results of others simply because he completely lacks their scientific education and technical skills.”
Obviously, Bindidon disagrees with Richard Feynman, who wrote “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.
If Bindidon could describe the GHE in some way that agrees with reality, Id probably take some notice. He can’t, of course, so I don’t.
He’s obviously a fantasist.
ark…”The end-Permian extinction was associated with a massive release of greenhouse gases, leading to global warming and ocean acidification. Elevated temperatures and increased stratification of the oceans would have reduced oxygen exchange between surface and bottom waters, creating oxygen-depleted conditions near the seabed”.
***
Straight out of the climate alarmist manual. They can’t even tell you how CO2 causes their current claims of catastrophic warming and climate change but they are willing to create outright lies about what happened to the dinosaurs.
What could possibly have caused a ‘massive release of greenhouse gases’ during that era? And how could dissolved CO2 in the massive oceans possibly have changed the pH levels in the oceans significantly?
> They cant even tell you
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Mr. Mr. Asshat is a natural.
The very strange Willard wrote –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Did an Impact Trigger the Permian-Triassic Extinction?
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/did-an-impact-trigger-the-permian-triassic-extinction/
“The paper reports on the identification of a large submarine impact structure off western Australia that is dated at 250.7 +/- 4.3 million years (an argon-argon date from a single plagioclase crystal). This geological rise had originally been thought to be volcanic, but a re-examination of drill cores by this team shows clear evidence of impact materials, including abundant shocked mineral grains. Their preliminary work suggests that this original crater was nearly as large as the Chicxulub crater, which caused the KT extinction 65 million years ago.”
But, no one knows. Later down page:
“The PT extinction remains one of the big mysteries of the history of life. We need to understand mass extinctions if we are to understand the evolution of life on our planet.”
But almost all ocean floor is younger than 250 million years and ocean is 70% of surface of Earth.
But we do know that large space rock which can cause this do occur like a clock or every 100 million years or so. And smaller rock impact like a clock every 50 million years. And bigger ones every 500 million years.
But we explore the Moon and Mars {both have ancient surfaces, unlike Earth] we can have a better understanding.
gb…”that is dated at 250.7 +/- 4.3 million years (an argon-argon date from a single plagioclase crystal)”.
***
Are the serious, they used a single plagioclase crystal to determine a date eons ago? Plagioclase feldspar is like quartz but not quite the same. They are trying to tell us they used a single crystal of plagioclase, to infer a date 4.3 million years ago? Nice try.
https://austhrutime.com/bedout_high.htm
4.3 million is the range of uncertainty, not the time before present.
It was 250 or so million years, plus or minus a percent or two.
> Theoretically, a planet with zero Albedo (a = 0) reflects nothing. Period. That is the definition of Bond albedo.
The only entity that reflects nothing is Mike Flynn.
Sometimes he even succeeds in reflecting less than nothing!
Silly sock puppet.
Some fool wrote –
“The only entity that reflects nothing is Mike Flynn.”
He might just as well have written “Mike Flynn is the smartest fellow in the world”.
Not terribly bright is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, I could have written that you are smart.
But then why would I lie?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
HELP Please
I am trying to understand how CO2 in the atmosphere can heat the surface of the earth. Earth IR radiation does intercept the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and does transfer energy to the temperature of the source ie perhaps 75 degrees F. The CO2 molecules in turn radiates IR energy in all directions half going to space. The energy radiated towards earth is at the same temperature as the earth source so no heating of the earth could result. A very small amount of the CO2 energy does heat the surrounding other atmospheric gases through conduction/convection. This however due to the relative molecular weights would be very small and not any substantial part of the recorded increase that UHA have recorded since 1979.
It can’t. The transfer of heat from an atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium or colder than the surface contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Many have tried to use tricks to bypass the 2nd law through a clear misunderstanding of it. They have resorted to confusing electromagnetic radiation with heat and come up with a cockamamey theory that, as long as the radiative balance is positive, that is, flowing from surface to air, the 2nd law is not compromised.
Clausius stated the 2nd law in several ways using an arrangement of words. The one I remember is this: heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a hotter object. That statement is not only applicable to heat (thermal energy) it is also applicable to all forms of energy. Energy cannot be transferred by its own mans from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.
Example. Water cannot run uphill by its own means. Water sitting in a lake will not suddenly start running uphill. A boulder will not spontaneously, by its own means, raise itself onto a cliff. In both of those examples, water and the boulder have no ability to change relocate to a higher energy level by their own means. Same with heat.
Dennis,
You wrote –
“I am trying to understand how CO2 in the atmosphere can heat the surface of the earth.”
It cant.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
” The CO2 molecules in turn radiates IR energy in all directions half going to space. The energy radiated towards earth is at the same temperature as the earth source so no heating of the earth could result. ”
That’s your mistake.
The energy radiated by CO2 towards the Earth is not at a temperature, it is at a wavelength. CO2 emits radiation around 15 micrometre wavelength regardless of temperature, which may be absorbed by the surface regardless of temperature.
It is thus possible for radiation emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere to warm the surface.
EM,
You wrote –
“which may be absorbed by the surface regardless of temperature.”
Complete nonsense. You are dreaming – CO2 at 20 C cannot make an object at 30 C hotter.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the past four and a half billion years, rather making a mockery of your CO2 fantasy.
You called the GHE “a stack of blankets”. Is that really the best you can do? What happened to your silly 15um nonsense? Do blankets emit 15um wavelength photons – heating the Earth by allowing it to cool?
Go on, provide some more light relief. Nothing wrong with laughter, is there?
Ent, CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT warm a 288K surface.
You’re still believing ice cubes can radiatively boil water. Just like you’re still believing passenger jets fly backward.
You have some strange beliefs….
Clint R
I would like to see your evidence to validate your opinion. Your strong belief does not make your opinions fact.
YOU: “Ent, CO2s 15μ photon can NOT warm a 288K surface.”
Repeating this many times does not change the reality that it is your opinion.
Have you done an actual experiment on CO2 gas? Get a tube made with IR transparent material (maybe Halite) fill it with CO2 then start heating the CO2. See if your idea is correct. In your vision of reality (based only on your opinions with zero factual basis) no matter how hot your CO2 gas got it could not warm room temperature surroundings. You could experiment (as Roy Spencer has done on issues) and have good supporting evidence for you opinionated claims.
While doing actual experiments, take two cans. Put on in the center and move the other one in a circular path around the other one. Let me know how you can keep the same side of the “orbiting” can facing the center without rotating the can at the same time you move it around the center can.
If you are not willing to experiment and provide any supporting evidence than all can agree you are posting your own opinions and they are not valuable to any but your own thought process.
Norman,
You are suffering from an attack of unreality.
Do you really think that anybody (apart from silly fanatical GHE cultists) believes that CO2 cannot both absorb and emit infrared radiation?
As you say, CO2 can both be heated and allowed to cool – like every other gas?
Are you now denying that this is a fact?
You are not terribly persuasive, if you are trying to convince others that CO2 has magic properties.
The Earth’s surface has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature.
None of you dingalings can even accept this fact – which makes any claim of a mythical GHE complete nonsense!
You are away with the fairies.
Norman, my statement is about radiative warming: “Ent, CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT warm a 288K surface.”
If you understood the science, “photon” was the clue.
You seem to be talking about “conductive”, rather than radiative. You’re very confused.
And I’ve already debunked your “two cans” nonsense. The ball-on-a-string keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit, but like Moon, it is not spinning. (If if were spinning, the string would wrap around it.)
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You are suffering from an attack of unreality”
You got one thing right and one thing wrong.
You implement the attack of unreality.
There is no suffering there.
Cheers.
Clint R
When did you debunk the two cans idea? I really doubt you could as if you had actually done this little test you would find you have to rotate the “orbiting” can to keep it facing the center can. The ball on the string is not a valid counter for an orbiting object. It is just a simple rotation. You get so confused with the string and ball, but don’t understand the motion is the same as a solid rod rotating around the center. The solid rod does rotate to as it moves in a circular path but only rotates. It is NOT orbiting.
If you can make a video showing your false narrative on the two cans I would like to see it. So far you just give your opinion that you “debunked it”. You have lots of opinions but you are very lacking in facts or evidence. You proclaim science but so no ability to use it (it is an evidence based study of nature).
Willard, you wrote “Mike Flynn”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman, this is your usual pattern. You make up nonsense, get corrected, then ignore the correction and continue making up nonsense. This is why you can’t learn.
Above, you tried to imply that you could heat a tube of CO2 gas and that would somehow prove your cult’s GHE. Do you see how stoopid that is?
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Clint R
Just more opinions from you and some insults thrown in. Still no evidence. You never have any and it seems you never will.
So make a video of you moving a can in an “orbit” around a center can and show how you can keep the “orbiting” can with the same side showing to the center can without rotating the “orbiting” can.
If you do this it will be some valid evidence. Just throwing insults is not evidence.
Norman, this is your usual pattern. You make up nonsense, get corrected, then ignore the correction and continue making up nonsense. This is why you can’t learn.
Above, you tried to imply that you could heat a tube of CO2 gas and that would somehow prove your cult’s GHE. Do you see how stoopid that is?
Now you insist on promoting your “two cans” nonsense that only indicates you don’t understand gravity.
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Clint R
When you are unable to provide any evidence for your opinions you resort to repeating the same thing. Do you think that is intelligent?
Dennis wrote:
“I am trying to understand how CO2 in the atmosphere can heat the surface of the earth.”
Here, Let Me Google That For You
P.s.: About 21,400,000 results (0.48 seconds)
Ark, when you find one of those 21,400,000 that doesn’t violate principles of physics, let us know….
Or you could play with ChatGPT –
Here’s it’s last response to me –
“The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
The Earth has demonstrably cooled over the past four and a half billion years. No surprise there!
The mythical GHE effect does not interfere with reality. Fanatical GHE cultists like Arkady don’t accept reality, so they have no trouble believing that myths are real.
None of them can describe the mythical GHE, so they link to others who can’t provide a description either, trying to look like they are cleverer than you.
Strange lot.
Dennis
” The energy radiated towards earth is at the same temperature as the earth source… ”
Certainly not. The higher the gas molecules in the atmosphere – H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 etc – the lower the temperature around them.
Regardless the direction, they will re-emit the photons they intercept at an energy level matching that temperature, hence lower than what the photons had before.
But from what I’ve read over the last decade, so-called back-radiation does indeed exist – it is measured every day – but it is almost negligible when compared to the accepted fact that the more gases that intercept infrared radiation are in the atmosphere, the less radiation reaches space, which increases the temperature like in an oven whose front door is gradually closed.
Pseudo-skeptical people operating on this blog discredit and deny this all the time. So what! They can deny as long as they want: that won’t change my opinion by even a tiny bit.
{ You will certainly have noticed that those who most deny this radiation problem are also those who most deny that our moon rotates on its polar axis. What a strange pairing indeed. }
*
” This however due to the relative molecular weights would be very small and not any substantial part of the recorded increase that UHA have recorded since 1979. ”
No one posting on this blog can confirm or refute your statement, including me and especially those who think they know anything real about Clausius’ latest interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Bindi, we already know you’re ignorant of science. There’s no need to re-confirm that.
Binny,
You wrote –
“But from what Ive read over the last decade, so-called back-radiation does indeed exist it is measured every day . . . ”
Scientists would just call it radiation. All gases in the atmosphere radiate IR – in all directions. Up, down, sideways. Meteorological thermometers interact with this radiation and people call it “air temperature”. If you use a remote sensing IR thermometer, and point it at a sample of atmosphere, it will respond to the radiation emitted by the atmosphere within the instrument’s “view” and give a reading – generally irrelevant, useless, and misleading.
Point the instrument at the atmosphere in such a way as to include the Sun in its view, and then try and figure out what the instrument’s reading means. Or point it downwards at a hot bitumen surface, and convince yourself that the reading applies to “upwelling long wave radiation’ from the atmosphere.
Fanatical GHE cultists just refuse to accept reality. Claiming that “back radiation” from a colder atmosphere can warm something hotter is just fantasy. No GHE.
” If you use a remote sensing IR thermometer, and point it at a sample of atmosphere, it will respond to the radiation emitted by the atmosphere within the instrument’s ‘view’ and give a reading generally irrelevant, useless, and misleading. ”
What an arrogant, incompetent blathering, based on no more than your egomaniacal gut feeling.
You knowledge-less braggart never used a pyranometer let alone a pyrgeometer in your entire life.
Heil the Holy Freedom of Speech!
walter.. from above re heat dome
Here’s a link to the BC Coroner’s report and an excer.p.t from it…
https://tinyurl.com/4n27ra5k
from page 5 of 56…
-Heat-related deaths were higher among persons on specific chronic disease registries (schizophrenia, substance use disorder, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, asthma, mood and anxiety disorders, and diabetes) compared to the B.C. population;
It’s obvious from reading the rest of the report that most deaths, over 90% involved people with compromised health. It’s unfortunate that such deaths occurred, I feel for the people who are helpless in such situations.
It annoyed me that even the coroner’s office is so stoopid it has to quote the IPCC, a body of outright cheaters and liars. That is what lead to the covid hysteria, the reliance on bumblers with theories who cannot think for themselves.
Thanks, Gordon. I just started reading, but what intrigues me is the discovery that more than half (56%) of these deaths were among people who lived alone, along with the chronic diseases that you mentioned.
The combination of being alone and suffering from mental disorders can be very bad, especially during an event like this. Extreme heat can induce dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, both of which have the potential to distort perception. When these conditions affect individuals who already experience an altered perception of reality due to conditions like schizophrenia or substance use disorder, it can cause or exacerbate hallucinations, which would make it difficult for them to discern between actual threats and imagined ones.
It’s sad that people who are least able to protect themselves are those who suffer most. I think they said that over 90% of the deaths involved people with chronic conditions. Similar to covid.
I got through the heat dome using just a fan. It has a large blade and blows a good amount of air. Simply pointing it at myself when sitting in front of a computer or sleeping in bed, is enough to cool me down sufficiently to avoid heat prostration. I usually have it on the lowest setting but on occasion I bump it up to the 2nd setting.
I have another fan I point inside my computer case which I run without the side cover on. That forced air reduces my processor temperature from about 80C down to 50+ C even in the hottest weather.
Emphasizes what Shula claimed about the effectiveness of conduction/convection over straight radiation. Heat sinks are used in electronics all the time to improve the heat dissipation of semiconductor power devices. It’s also why all computer have fans on the case and right at the processor heat sink to remove heat. Radiation alone would cause device failures.
For most of us, the heat dome was a minor inconvenience. Here in Vancouver the temps never rose above 30C or so, which would be considered a nice, cool day in Bombay, or even the interior of BC, where 40C+ can be the norm in summer.
Of course, the alarmists had a field day with it.
That heat wave was extraordinary; it’s highly unlikely Canadians will witness anything like it for the remainder of the century, although you should never bet on deterministic chaos. I find it hard to believe a similar event hasn’t happened before anywhere in the world; our records are so short.
You’re correct. Heat can be dealt with easily. For my location, by mid to late-July, low to mid 100s are common; it’s always been that way.
I’m with you on no global warming detected. We had one of our snowiest winters on record the season before this one. I have seen no proof of it in my entire life; my father has said the same thing, and he’s lived here for 32 years now.
He said in February of ’95, it was warm enough to play golf in shorts and a t-shirt at altitudes above 6,500′ ft. Lower areas normally buried with snow resembling a winter wonderland could be traversed with mountain bikes; all of the snow in the valley had melted. The only snow that remained was the very high elevations of the Wasatch Front. Nobody cared; they just enjoyed the mild weather. I like cold and snowy winters, but I also don’t mind warm, pleasant winters.
Satisfying to see that Kari Lake surrendered in the court case against her lies about her election being stolen.
These MAGA Republicans and their enablers are the worst. Never seen the GOP in such an appalling state.
barry,
“Never seen the GOP in such an appalling state.”
Really? Damn! Is that important for some reason? What’s a MAGA?
Are you talking about secret GHE cult business?
Only joking. – you have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
[laughing at GHE cultist spouting incomprehensible nonsense]
Poodle keeps following me and yapping.
barry,
You wrote –
“Poodle keeps following me and yapping.”
If you have been paying Bindidon for lessons in how to appear intelligent, good for you!,
He got your money. What did you get?
Apart from my heartfelt laughter, of course.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“If you have been paying”
Speculating again, silly sock puppet?
barry,
You wrote
“Poodle keeps following me and yapping.”
If you have been paying Bindidon for lessons in how to appear intelligent, good for you!,
He got your money. What did you get?
Apart from my heartfelt laughter, of course.
Mike Flynn,
You responded to my comment by writing –
“barry”
What are you braying about?
barry,
You wrote
“Poodle keeps following me and yapping.”
If you have been paying Bindidon for lessons in how to appear intelligent, good for you!,
He got your money. What did you get?
Apart from my heartfelt laughter, of course.
Mike Flynn,
I’m not Barry.
Cheers.
[What a buffoon!]
barry,
You wrote
“Poodle keeps following me and yapping.”
If you have been paying Bindidon for lessons in how to appear intelligent, good for you!,
He got your money. What did you get?
Apart from my heartfelt laughter, of course.
I am not Barry, Mike Flynn.
But you two could arrange to meet up.
Might take a long drive, but it would be possible.
You return to Aussie civilization from time to time, no?
At least un Sundays you do.
You have to be joking. I am not a right-winger by any means and I find the Democrats to be egregiously crooked. For once in my life, I hope the Republicans win the next election, so we can restore North America back to a semblance of democracy.
The only alternative is Robert Kennedy, Jr. I doubt that he has the support to win, however.
My dad, who lived most of his life in the UK, voted Labour. Occasionaly, much to my chagrin, he’d vote for another party, like the Tories, when Labour, or the Liberals in Canada, were not getting the job done. Maybe you noticed the landslide victory of the UK Tories last election which had to mean that significant Labour votes went to the Tories.
All of these politically-correct, ‘woke’ ijits have to go. We can no longer tolerate those who would infiltrate our democracy and try to change it to suit minority interests. I am talking as a Canadian. Our government currently equals the excesses of the Democrats, specializing in interfering with our democratic rights.
The Liberals in Canada finished the last election with 33% of the popular vote. The Tories got 34% and are in opposition. The Liberals are being propped up by the NDP who have 18% of the vote. The NDP negotiating plan is based on dental care. For cripes sakes, our democracy is falling apart and they are fighting for dental care?
The Liberals have since lost popular vote support and are now scrambling to recover from defeat by the Tories. So, it’s not just the US who have that issue. Both the Canadian and US governments are trying to implement plans that are a turn off to most voters and they are to dumb to see that.
barry remains confused about the Moon issue. I don’t have time to correct all his mistakes now — maybe this weekend. I’lI just address one this morning;
barry is confused about angular momentum. He believes Moon has angular momentum. I explained to him that orbiting does NOT involve angular momentum. An orbiting moon, or planet, has no angular momentum, as there is no physical attachment to the object it orbits.
If the moon or planet is spinning, like Earth, then it has “spin” angular momentum. But Moon is NOT spinning so it has NO spin angular momentum.
barry appeared to just brush off that reality, as usual.
Puffman has one person who agrees with him on angular momentum on this website, Mr. Mr. Asshat. And these two Moon Dragon cranks can’t even agree on how to describe the Moon’s orbit!
Perhaps he should confront reality and do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard, perhaps you should take both hands out of your trousers when you comment. Leaving one hand down the front of your trousers might be causing you to write nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
[mental picture – eeeeew!]
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“mental picture”
Do sock puppets haz that?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, perhaps you should take both hands out of your trousers when you comment. Leaving one hand down the front of your trousers might be causing you to write nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
[mental picture eeeeew!]
You already said that, Mike.
Willard, perhaps you should take both hands out of your trousers when you comment. Leaving one hand down the front of your trousers might be causing you to write nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
[mental picture eeeeew!]
Mike, you already said this.
Willard, perhaps you should take both hands out of your trousers when you comment. Leaving one hand down the front of your trousers might be causing you to write nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
[mental picture eeeeew!]
Yuk yuk yuk. Swenson shows that he’s mentally stuck in 7th grade.
Willard, perhaps you should take both hands out of your trousers when you comment. Leaving one hand down the front of your trousers might be causing you to write nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
[mental picture eeeeew!]
This you already said, Mike.
“I explained to him that orbiting does NOT involve angular momentum.”
And every single physics text on the subject and every single engineering text on the subject explains clearly how the moon DOES have angular momentum.
L = r x p
Tim,
As does every body revolving about another.
Have you anything else not readily apparent to a reasonably intelligent 12 year old?
Does a particle on the Moon’s surface have angular momentum with respect to its CoG? Does it satisfy Newton’s bucket test?
I think not, but I will accept experimental evidence to the contrary. The contents of your imagination are not acceptable as experiments.
You live in a dream world, don’t you?
“Does a particle on the Moon’s surface have angular momentum with respect to its CoG?”
Well, your reasonably intelligent 12 year old knows that L = r x p.
And your reasonably intelligent 12 year old knows that that a particle on the moon has both r and p with respect to the CoG. So he could correctly conclude that that particle does indeed have anglular momentum with respect to the CoG.
For experimental evidence, look at every experiment ever with angular momentum, which all confirm L = r x p.
Even chalk circles have an r and p, so they must have L = r x p.
The TEAM thinks they can use incredulity to defeat math or physics.
Tim,
You wrote –
“For experimental evidence, look at every experiment ever with angular momentum, which all confirm L = r x p.”
I can’t find any experiment establishing Newton’s bucket test for the Moon. You don’t have any either, do you?
Can you produce any reason at all why people should believe you are not clinically insane, inasmuch as you refuse to accept reality? You can’t actually produce an experiment that you claim exists, can you?
Give it a try, dummy. Ill wait.
“I cant find any experiment establishing” that greenhouses get warmer inside…either.
So what does that prove?!
That proves that nature doesnt care for what Swenson thinks.
Well, I have never taken a bucket to the moon, so no, I can’t experimentally confirm that it would work there.
You have a rather petty onlook on science if you need experimental proof of every exact situation you can imagine!
"So he could correctly conclude that that particle does indeed have anglular momentum with respect to the CoG…"
…and you could conclude the same about the chalk circle…
Well, if you know the mass of the chalk, the distance(s) from a point, and the velocity(s) relative to that point, then yes, you can calculate the angular momentum of the chalk circle.
Sure, Tim, you can calculate a lot of things. Objectively, the chalk circle is not rotating on its own internal axis, regardless.
… when the chalk circle is observed from the accelerated frame of the mgr.
More of Ball4’s invented "as observed from" nonsense.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
That equation, L = r x p, only applies if the “r” is of an actual mechanical attachment. You are confused by how to use the equation. Gravity is NOT an actual mechanical attachment to Moon. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go hurling into space, in a straight line, NOT spinning.
“That equation, L = r x p, only applies if the r is of an actual mechanical attachment.”
Can anybody explain why Clint seeks ridicule? Is he that desperate for attention?
Where in the equation is the ‘attachment’ variable?
Single white male seeking meaningful attachment:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html
Sorry, none to be found in this universe.
Child Nate is irresponsibly tr0lling, again.
He can’t understand physics, so this is just for responsible adults:
Assume child Nate is floating is space. Assume the ISS passes within 1000 m of floating Nate. According to the cult science, there is now an angular momentum of 1000 x P, where P is the linear momentum of the ISS.
1. Is Nate now spinning?
2. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity, yet this misuse of the equation produces angular momentum where there was none before.
3. If Nate were 10000 m from the traveling ISS, the misuse of the equation means the system has 10 times the angular momentum just because he is farther away!
Yeah, Nate is just a child of the cult, with no knowledge of the science.
(And, the funny thing is, he won’t understand any of this. He’ll just continue to throw more crap against the wall.)
“there is now an angular momentum of 1000 x P, where P is the linear momentum of the ISS.”
Yep. Your evidence otherwise?
Then explain how a mass orbiting another one is a ‘rotation’ yet has no angular momentum?
Suppose that Puffman does the Pole Dance Experiment:
Q1. Does he rotate absolutely?
Q2. Is he a universe?
Q3. Does he dance at the speed of light?
So many questions to ask, so little time.
“That equation, L = r x p, only applies if the r is of an actual mechanical attachment” … said no scientist or engineer ever. Your interpretation violates SO many laws of physics, starting with conservation of angular momentum.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1656969
Clint thinks a skater skating past her stationary partner has no angular momentum wrt their COM.
But when he reaches out and grabs hold of her, they both end up spinning around their COM.
He must think that angular momentum just appeared out of nothing.
Of course that would be incorrect and stoopid.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657022
Child Nate shoots himself in his foot: “But when he reaches out and grabs hold of her…”
That would be an “attachment”, child.
“That would be an attachment, child.”
Yes that would be an attachment. That allows it to be shared between the two skaters.
But that doesnt CREATE angular momentum that didnt already exist.
That would violate angular momentum conservation.
Obviously you have no idea about this subject.
Child, it’s really no surprise you can’t even understand your own example, is it?
What will you try next?
Clint, you clearly need to start with a simpler scenario so you can start to build understanding of angular momentum. Like your ubiquitous ball-on-string.
A 0.1 kg ball on the end of a 1 m string is moving in a circle at 2 m/s. Measured from the fixed center of the circle, r = 1m, p = 0.2 kg*m/, theta = 90 and L = r x p = rp sin(theta) = 0.2 kg m^2/s.
Now the string breaks and the ball flies off in a straight line. By conservations of angular momentum, there must still be L = 0.2 kg m^2/s of angular momentum in that same reference frame. Although r is increasing from the center of the circle, sin(theta) is decreasing, and L = 0.2 kg m^2/s remains constant.
This is junior level mechanics that any physicist or engineer should know.
Yes Folkerts, the string is attached to the ball. Angular momentum is then conserved.
But Moon has no such mechanical attachment to Earth. Therefore, Moon has no angular momentum.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
It has long been known that angular rotation from the Earth’s rotation to the Moon’s orbit via tides.
What’s your excuse not to know that?
“the string is attached to the ball” … until it is not!
And even after the string is released, angular momentum remains constant at 0.2 kg m^2/s
The string provided angular momentum to the ball. So when the string broke, the ball maintained that angular momentum.
Folkerts is sure having a hard time with this….
“The string provided angular momentum to the ball. So when the string broke, the ball maintained that angular momentum.”
Clint admits that without an attachment a body can have angular momentum after all.
Oh well!
Yes, Nate. To recap:
Clint: “That equation, L = r x p, only applies if the r is of an actual mechanical attachment”
Also Clint: “The string provided angular momentum to the ball. So when the string broke, the ball maintained that angular momentum.”
The string provided angular momentum to the ball. So when the string broke, the ball maintained that angular momentum.
The cult kids are sure having a hard time understanding this. That’s because they have no background in the relevant physics. They can’t understand what “conserved quantity” means.
But at least they know how to abuse their keyboards….
You are now saying that angular momentum continues when there is no mechanical attachment. isn’t that opposite to what you said before?
“That equation, L = r x p, only applies if the r is of an actual mechanical attachment”
Look up “conservation of angular momentum”, barry.
Then find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
And somewhere around here is where it becomes completely pointless. We are getting into yet another round of:
SKEPTIC> You obviously have no idea (about angular momentum or density of moist air or radiative heat transfer or electric currents or … ). Go learn some science!
EVERYONE ELSE> But no science textbook agrees with you.
SKEPTIC> Don’t trust science. It is all wrong!
So Clint is now ok with an attachment gives angular momentum which remains after being removed…because angular momentum is conserved!
Now he just has to learn that the opposite also is allowed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657007
No attachment initially yet a body has angular momentum, then when attached to another body, both have angular momentum, because angular momentum is conserved!
Let’s see if he can grok this.
Now Folkerts verifies he doesn’t understand that “science” is NOT beliefs. If your “science” violates the principles of physics, it ain’t science.
And Nate continues to display his ignorance of “conservation of angular momentum”.
What will they try next?
As expected, Clint doubles down on his stoopidity.
No matter, he accomplished his goal of getting attention by posting ridiculous nonsense.
“An orbiting moon, or planet, has no angular momentum, as there is no physical attachment to the object it orbits.”
It is very odd how they have always insisted that an ORBIT is a ROTATION.
Now we are supposed to understand how a ‘rotating mass’ does not have any angular momentum.
Gee, then what does?
The story gets increasingly bizarre.
Nate,
You wrote-
“Gee, then what does?.
You tell me – or don’t you know?
The Moon does. Don’t you know? No probably not.
I’ll just leave this here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
“hence the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference.”
Regardless of reference frames, huh? Sounds familiar…
Sounds like DREMT has no relevant point, again.
"…hence the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference."
Ah, the glorious ecstasy of eternal vindication.
Another easy win for Team Justice, Integrity, Truth, and Honesty (JITH)
“Another easy win for Team Justice, Integrity, Truth, and Honesty (JITH)”
Clearly someone with deep insecurity about these qualities in himself…
Looks like our captain of Team Moon Dragon cranks still missed *is a topic of debate*.
I wonder why.
Looks like Little Willy’s a sore loser.
So much winning:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time
Wait – what’s that “.m.”?
Little Willy starts the random link process.
Graham D. Starts denying his own source:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps he should drop the phone from time to time?
That might help him read the resources he should have found more than five years ago.
Random quoting begins.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner has lost touch with the notions of debate and interpretation.
Ah well.
Why is Little Willy responding to me?
Is Graham D. Warner playing dumb again?
No, I asked why you were responding to me. Why bother, when you don’t have a point?
Hypocrisy alert!
That deserves to be emphasized:
Ut. Supra.
Little Willy shlurps away…
Graham D. Warner is looking for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame
“It” might not be knowledge.
More random links.
Graham D. Warner has yet to understand the relationship between preferred time and the Sagnac effect.
That sounds familiar!
If you have any relevant point to make, clearly and concisely make it, in your own words. No links, no quotes, no insinuation.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
What will it be when he will discover that satellites, whose results he denies, operate under the principle he just discovered?
And so Graham D. Warner shows he does not know that relativity cranks have been pushing Sagnac for decades now, e.g.:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-812240
Not that Graham denies relativity, mind you. He does not take position. The true pest septic.
Little Willy was unable to do as requested. Team JITH cheers at another effortless victory.
“Team JITH cheers”
Team delus.ional crows
Graham D. Warner imagines that he is in a position to request sammiches.
Meanwhile, he will continue to gaslight.
I’m not requesting any sammiches, Little Willy. I’m just suggesting that you actually make a point, if you have one. Rather than doing your usual furious last-minute Googling of a subject to make it look as though you understand any of it. If you don’t have a point, that’s fine. I’ll take the easy win.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1656953
Another win for Team Science!
OK, Little Willy.
I’m just gonna put this here:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] I’m not requesting any sammiches
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Little Willy was unable to do as requested.
The first line came right after the second.
I didn’t realise a "sammich request" was just asking you to make a point. Most people would assume you would do that without being asked, anyway.
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
If you say so, Little Willy.
walterrh03 writes:
“The combination of being alone and suffering from mental disorders can be very bad, especially during an event like this. Extreme heat can induce dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, both of which have the potential to distort perception. When these conditions affect individuals who already experience an altered perception of reality due to conditions like schizophrenia or substance use disorder, it can cause or exacerbate hallucinations, which would make it difficult for them to discern between actual threats and imagined ones.”
So true. So true. That explains a lot of what we see on this site.
Hey, man, have a little respect. We are talking about poor souls who died in the 2021 heat wave that killed off largely seniors in British Columbia, Canada.
Of course, I am wasting my breath, alarmists like you don’t care about people and how the Draconian green agenda will harm them.
DMT,
You wrote “That explains a lot of what we see on this site.”
Exactly. People who support a GHE (which they can’t even describe) reject the reality that CO2 can both be heated and allowed to cool, demonstrating that it can both absorb and emit infrared radiation!
I assume you agree wholeheartedly. If you don’t, feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
That’s the point, isn’t it? With increasing altitude, CO2 cools and the frequency of IR it emits is too low to be absorbed by a warmer surface.
Basic quantum theory. But even quantum theory suffers, like physics does from climate theory, from theorists who insist on turning quantum theory into pseudo-science.
Even Bohr, who invented quantum theory as we know it today, could not resist trailing off into the nether-worlds with ridiculous theories about quantum entanglement.
His original theory of quantized electron orbitals was brilliant, still the basis of modern chemistry and electronics, why not leave it at that? He had Schrodinger and Einstein onside till he started braying about action at a distance, a lame theory that claimed electrons could communicate with electrons a significant distance away.
Then his theorist buddies got in on the act. The electron, defined as a particle with mass and an electric charge, suddenly gained the property of being a wave as well.
I have no idea how electrons fired at a single slit manage to produce similar diffraction patterns on a screen akin to the diffraction patterns produced by light moving through parallel slits. However, I dare say I could come up with a much better explanation than wave-particle duality.
David Bohm, physicist and expert on quantum theory, reasoned there may be a quantum potential in the slit that diverts the electrons, but I don’t think he bought the theory that electrons exist as both waves and as a solid mass.
Whatever happened to real science?
Gordon,
You wrote “why not leave it at that?”.
As you say, because the theory couldn’t explain things like the counter-intuitive results of the double slit experiment.
You said “However, I dare say I could come up with a much better explanation than wave-particle duality.”, but I bet you can’t.
I agree with Richard Feynman saying “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” I agree with Feynman, which makes us both equally smart – or equally stupid, depending on your perspective.
Quantum electrodynamics explains experimental results that cannot be explained in any other way. Apart from invoking magic, or the supernatural, that is.
Good enough for me.
“Whatever happened to real science?”
Yeah, Gordon, how did the Moon lose all its angular momentum?
The universe is all screwy!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Yeah, Gordon, how did the Moon lose all its angular momentum?”
Which angular momentum are you talking about? You don’t understand the question?
Why am I not surprised?
No prizes for a correct answer.
Im hearing that buzzing noise again. Anybody else hear it?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Gordon says:
“That’s the point, isnt it? With increasing altitude, CO2 cools and the frequency of IR it emits is too low”
A volume of CO2 at -10C emits at 15 um, and so does a volume of CO2 at 15C and 20C.
CO2 emits in discrete bands. But even blackbodies emit across the spectrum at any temperature. An object doesn’t stop emitting at a certain frequency when it gets colder.
This is the complete error in Gordon’s conception of the matter. He mistakes peak frequency at a given temperature for the spectrum of frequencies that an object or gas radiates at.
Nate, you wrote “CO2 emits in discrete bands.”
Complete nonsense. You are probably thinking about spectroscopy or spectrometry, rather than wavelengths which are dependent on the temperature of the emitter and nothing else.
Or maybe you are thinking about excited CO2 coherent laser radiation – mostly 9.6 um? Nothing to do with wavelengths emitted by CO2 proportional to temperature, of course.
Certainly not about CO2 in the atmosphere, which is exactly the same temperature as the other gases (known as air temperature), and emitting exactly the same wavelengths.
Maybe you could provide some support for your statement?
Or maybe you could carry on dreaming, and making misleading vague statements.
Oh dear, oh dear. This is why science isn’t suitable for doggies. They are hopeless at it. Can you click on a link with your paws?
https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/01F8GF9E8WXYS168WRPPK9YHEY?Type=Infographics&Tag=Spectroscopy
I don’t know if you can read. If you need it explained to you, just woof a couple of times. Try not to yap.
Nate, you wrote “CO2 emits in discrete bands.”
Complete nonsense. You are probably thinking about spectroscopy or spectrometry, rather than wavelengths which are dependent on the temperature of the emitter and nothing else.
Or maybe you are thinking about excited CO2 coherent laser radiation mostly 9.6 um? Nothing to do with wavelengths emitted by CO2 proportional to temperature, of course.
Certainly not about CO2 in the atmosphere, which is exactly the same temperature as the other gases (known as air temperature), and emitting exactly the same wavelengths.
Maybe you could provide some support for your statement?
Or maybe you could carry on dreaming, and making misleading vague statements.
You linked to something titled “spectroscopy”. Nothing to do with wavelengths emitted by CO2 as a result of temperature.
Maybe you should actually read your authority –
“Absorption Spectra: When light passes through a gas, atoms and molecules in the gas absorb certain colors, or wavelengths, of that light. The result is an absorption spectrum: a rainbow with dark absorption lines.
Emission Spectra: The same gas can glow, giving off very specific colors to form an emission spectrum with bright lines known as emission lines. ”
Maybe you could stick to your obsession with canines. Science (particularly physics) seems to be beyond you.
Like all other matter, CO2 emits radiation whose wavelengths are dependent on temperature.
No GHE.
Poor thing misses his master, Nate.
Doggies don’t know much about rainbows, poor things. They have a limited colour spectrum. But even the dimmest-sighted dogs should be able to see the gaps between the absorp.tion bands for gases.
“Dry air, elementary gases e.g., O2, N2, H2, and the noble gases are practically diathermanous, i.e., transparent to thermal radiation. Other gases and vapors e.g., H2O, CO2, CO, O3, SO2, HCl, NH3, and CH4 are selective radiators, i.e., they emit and absorb within narrow wavelength bands.”
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-77877-6_66
We could talk about how the composition of of a gas molecule makes it so that they only emit in discrete bands, unlike blackbodies, which emit across the spectrum, but I think that would be too complicated for little yappers.
This might do, though.
“The spectrum of incandescent solids is said to be continuous because all wavelengths are present. The spectrum of incandescent gases, on the other hand, is called a line spectrum because only a few wavelengths are emitted.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/spectrum#ref11396
If only pups knew about astronomy and how gases are easily detected in the environments of stars and planets of many different temperatures – because their spectral lines are consistent at different temperatures.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/scientists-determine-atmosphere-planets.html
Now, roll over little one.
Nate, you wrote CO2 emits in discrete bands.
Complete nonsense. You are probably thinking about spectroscopy or spectrometry, rather than wavelengths which are dependent on the temperature of the emitter and nothing else.
Or maybe you are thinking about excited CO2 coherent laser radiation mostly 9.6 um? Nothing to do with wavelengths emitted by CO2 proportional to temperature, of course.
Certainly not about CO2 in the atmosphere, which is exactly the same temperature as the other gases (known as air temperature), and emitting exactly the same wavelengths.
Maybe you could provide some support for your statement?
Or maybe you could carry on dreaming, and making misleading vague statements.
You linked to something titled “spectroscopy”. Nothing to do with wavelengths emitted by CO2 as a result of temperature.
Maybe you should actually read your authority
“Absorption Spectra: When light passes through a gas, atoms and molecules in the gas absorb certain colors, or wavelengths, of that light. The result is an absorption spectrum: a rainbow with dark absorption lines.
Emission Spectra: The same gas can glow, giving off very specific colors to form an emission spectrum with bright lines known as emission lines.”
Maybe you could stick to your obsession with canines. Science (particularly physics) seems to be beyond you.
Like all other matter, CO2 emits radiation whose wavelengths are dependent on temperature.
No GHE.
Barry, you dingaling,
You quoted –
“The spectrum of incandescent gases, on the other hand, is called a line spectrum because only a few wavelengths are emitted.”
Unfortunately, you can’t find any incandescent CO2 in your immediate vicinity, can you?
Your quote is incorrect, by the way. The author is referring to glowing, ie excited gases, rather than incandescent gases.
No matter, there is no GHE. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Go on, give it a try.
“Nate, you wrote CO2 emits in discrete bands.”
Clearly written by a bot lacking any AI. Can’t even get the name of the poster right.
“You are probably thinking about spectroscopy or spectrometry, rather than wavelengths”
Tee hee hee!
Our science deniers say the darndest things!
“The author is referring to glowing, ie excited gases, rather than incandescent gases.”
”
incandescent
/ˌinkənˈdes(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
emitting light as a result of being heated”
Swenson at his clueless best!
We know there is helium in the Sun’s atmosphere as well as Neptune’s because the spectral lines are the same regardless that the temperatures of the atmospheres are different by nearly 6000 K.
Swenson should be able to put this together in his own head without much effort, but all he can do is yap. The reflex opposition to everything we say makes him vacuous.
Ha ha ha ha !
Both Gordon and Swenson took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Only deranged people here would bother responding with the mental disorders desrcribed by walterrh03. They obviously identify.
DMT,
You wrote “That explains a lot of what we see on this site.”
Exactly. People who support a GHE (which they cant even describe) reject the reality that CO2 can both be heated and allowed to cool, demonstrating that it can both absorb and emit infrared radiation!
I assume you agree wholeheartedly. If you dont, feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
I’m waiting – take your time.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Keep digging!
DMT,
You wrote “That explains a lot of what we see on this site.”
Exactly. People who support a GHE (which they cant even describe) reject the reality that CO2 can both be heated and allowed to cool, demonstrating that it can both absorb and emit infrared radiation!
I assume you agree wholeheartedly. If you dont, feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Im waiting take your time
Mike Flynn,
Denying what reality, again?
What are you braying about?
Silly sock puppet?
Cheers?
DMT,
You wrote “That explains a lot of what we see on this site.”
Exactly. People who support a GHE (which they can’t even describe) reject the reality that CO2 can both be heated and allowed to cool, demonstrating that it can both absorb and emit infrared radiation!
I assume you agree wholeheartedly. If you dont, feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
I’m waiting. Take your time.
Mike Flynn,
Heres you in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Why are you still here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Let’s discuss actual greenhouse’s warming.
From what I have observed, a greenhouse warms because it traps some of the IR radiation back on its walls and it causes the walls to get warmer.
It is not the air warming, because I have a greenhouse which permits the outside air in.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, did an experiment in 1909 that proved a greenhouse warms due to a lack of convection. He preformed the experiment because he understood the properties of CO2 and could not understand how trapped IR could possibly warm the air in the greenhouse.
There is no scientific reason why trapped IR should warm the air in a greenhouse. What would be the mechanism? It is suggested that IR radiated by surfaces in the greenhouse, as well as CO2, is blocked by the glass, gets reflected and is somehow re-absorbed by CO2 and surfaces to increase the air temperature in the greenhouse.
That represents perpetual motion. A surface loses heat by radiation as well as conduction/convection. The IR-blocking theory suggests that same lost heat can be recycled to raise the temperature of the same surfaces, not only to replace the lost heat, but to increase the temperature beyond what solar energy can heat the surfaces.
Wood reasoned that the glass serves to block heated air molecules that are warmed by all heated surfaces in the greenhouse. The air does get warmer because air molecules touch the surfaces and instantly gain heat. By opening a window, you release some of the heated air molecules, and that cools the air slightly, but not enough to cool all of the air, which is constantly being re-heated by solar energy.
Modern greenhouses have temperature controls. They have motors attached to windows and when the temperature exceeds a set point, the motor drives a mechanism that opens the windows a certain amount. When the temperature drops too much, it closes them a certain amount.
When you walk into a greenhouse, the first thing you notice is the hot air. Obviously, the air warms. You would not notice the infrastructure being warmer via radiation because of the inverse square law. Unless you stood next to a wall, or touched it, you would not realize it was warm. It is the air that defines heat in a greenhouse.
All of the air defines the temperature, not a trace gas making up 0.04% of the air.
The GHE theory is absurd. It is an anachronism dating back to 1850 when scientists believed that heat could flow through air as heat rays.
First Gordon fairly accurately describes a real GHE, then calls the theory absurd. Which is it really, Gordon?
Ball4,
You dummy. He said “the GHE theory is absurd”.
Can’t you read, or are you reading something he didn’t write?
Are you the same dummy who said the Earth cooled because of a lack of greenhouses? Or was that somebody else calling themselves Ball4?
If you are referring to trapped IR, then explain how trapped IR can raise the temperature of air. 99.9% of air molecules can’t absorb IR and heated surfaces can’t absorb it either. So, how does it raise temperatures?
Gordon,
Trapped IR? I’d like some of that!
So would the operators of the Ivanpah solar generating facility.
According to Wikipedia –
“Ivanpah generated only 0.652 TWh (63%) of its energy from solar means, and the other 0.388 TWh (37%) was generated by burning natural gas.”
Obviously, not enough “trapped IR”. Maybe Ivanpah needs another solar plant next door, so it won’t have to burn so much of that “dirty fossil fuel”. Or better IR traps, or something.
“Gordon,
Trapped IR? Id like some of that!”
***
I’d like to know how you trap IR in the first place. That’s the basis of the AGW theory, that CO2 traps heat, but in their ignorance they don’t know heat cannot be trapped by air molecules. Therefore they are talking about trapping IR and mistakenly calling it heat.
Alarmists are seriously confused.
Thank you, Gordon, for your response.
–
“It is suggested that IR radiated by surfaces in the greenhouse, as well as CO2, is blocked by the glass, gets reflected and is somehow re-absorbed by CO2 and surfaces to increase the air temperature in the greenhouse.”
–
What I have observed is that solar IR is blocked by glass from the outside, warms the glass and partly gets emitted in too.
The low IR radiated by surfaces in the greenhouse, is partly blocked by the glass, warms the glass, gets reflected and emitted in, and increases the temperature of walls in greenhouse.
The air in greenhouse gets warmed by conduction/convection from the walls, as it happens with the air in ordinary rooms, when the outdoors air enters room from a window.
–
The CO2 in air has nothing to do with the greenhouse temperature.
–
Solar radiation gets in due to the glass’ transparency to the SW EM energy. The IR radiation finds it difficult to escape, because glass is not transparent for the low IR.
–
When it becomes overheated, they open the windows and cool the greenhouse with some portion of the cooler outdoors air, as every ordinary overheated room does.
–
The glass, when solar irradiated gets very warm, almost burning in cloudless day, it feels very hot when touched.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…don’t forget that hot surface warms air molecules directly. I don’t think the glass is significant other than to trap heat air molcules that try to rise naturally.
Shula explained it well and he has a masters degree in theoretical physics. The number of air molecules touching a surface per square metre is something like 10^27. Each molecule absorbs heat directly from a surface whereas radiated photons from a surface is much less. I don’t know why but I’m sure it has something to do with the fact that only certain electrons in surface atoms radiate energy.
At any rate, Shula claims that conduction/convection from a surface is 260 times more efficient at removing heat from a surface than radiation.
The note from R.W. Wood…
https://web.archive.org/web/20170528192959/https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf
Christos,
A steel shipping container in the sun gets far hotter than a greenhouse.
Unfortunately, plants need light for photosynthesis.
Greenhouses do not trap heat. The sunlight warms the glass (glass, like steel, interacts with IR and gets warm), and also the contents of the greenhouse, when the radiation which not blocked by the glass interacts with the greenhouse contents.
When the sun sets, the glass and the contents cool down. Erecting a greenhouse in a freezer won’t make any difference to its inside temperature, even though the freezer walls are furiously radiating infrared radiation, being hundreds of Kelvins above absolute aero.
As you know, radiative intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, and the fourth power of even 255 K is quite large – 4,228,250,625. That’s lots of energy!
No GHE though. That’s just a myth.
Thank you, Swenson, for your response.
“A steel shipping container in the sun gets far hotter than a greenhouse.”
Very much agreed.
The difference with the container is that glass lets some of the light thru in.
And also some light gets thru the glass out.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson’s not to bright. Cars get very hot in the sun, because they have windows. Cover them, and the car doesn’t get hot.
Nate,
Steel shipping containers (no glass at all) create higher internal air temperatures, than motor cars
When you say “Cars get very hot in the sun,”, what do you mean?
Yes, anything can get very hot in the sun – a dark coloured steel shipping container with a dull finish will achieve higher surface temperatures than most cars. Maybe you are merely confused, and are thinking of such things as objects inside the car, in direct sunlight. The window glass only partially absorbs the Sun’s energy, whilst allowing much to pass through.
You sound like the sort of person who would be silly enough to claim that the reason a car in the sun gets hot is because of the greenhouse effect!
Correct me if I’m wrong. Facts and verifiable figures would help.
By the same reasoning, if you cover a greenhouse it should not warm either. But then you forget conduction/convection. If the ambient air temperature is 40C, the car will eventually warm.
And if the air temperature is below freezing, and the sun is not shining, sitting inside the greenhouse will make you wish for a bit of global warming.
“Steel shipping containers (no glass at all) create higher internal air temperatures, than motor cars”
Have you never left your mother’s basement?
Where do you get these nutty ideas?
FYI
https://www.amazon.com/Iridescent-Windshield-Sunshade-Accordion-SUV-Blocks-Protector-Keeps/dp/B08ZVSRCTR/ref=zg_bs_g_3147717011_d_sccl_15/133-7342607-6985748?th=1
Apparently blocking sunlight from penetrating the windshield of a car
“Keeps Your Vehicle Cool”
You may want to try out one of these.
Swenson,
The shipping container is heated on its EXTERIOR. Thus most of that heat can escape to the air through convection and radiation.
A car or a greenhouse is heated on its INTERIOR, because the sunlight passes through the glass windows. Thus the heat cannot be simply be carried away to the exterior atmosphere via convection or radiation.
So your notion that a shipping container would get hotter inside then a greenhouse makes little sense.
Nate,
Of course you can provide recorded air temperatures inside cars left in the Sun, can’t you?
Figures might support you better than simply asserting “So your notion that a shipping container would get hotter inside then a greenhouse makes little sense.”
I’ll kick you off with US military spec for max internal air temperature allowed in shipping container – 71 C. Around 160 F. External surface temperature depends on surface treatment, but will not exceed 85 C.
Over to you – measured internal air temperature in a car in the Sun.
You don’t have any facts to support you, do you?
Back to your GHE fantasy, laddie!
I tried to explain with logic. And you have no logical rebuttal.
Oh well.
“Of course you can provide recorded air temperatures inside cars left in the Sun, cant you?”
Once in a while toddlers are left in cars, and end up dying of the excessive heat.
You seem to have little life experience.
Ignorance of this phenomenon is no excuse.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/health/dogsinhotcars
@ Nate says:
March 27, 2024 at 6:37 AM
It seems for some people, ignorance is BLISS.
“Seems” is the key word…
Ignorance of lies and deceptions (=most mainstream news and establishment decrees) is bliss because exposing yourself to that is self-propagandization.
Ignorance of truths is not, or only temporarily or rarely, bliss because it is ultimately self-defeating …. https://johnmichaeldemarco.com/15-reasons-why-ignorance-is-not-bliss
The FALSE mantra of ignorance is bliss, promoted in the latter sense, is a product of a fake sick culture that has indoctrinated its dumbed down (therefore TRULY ignorant, therefore easy to control) people with many such manipulative slogans. Eg…
Were all in this together is a tribal maxim. Even there, its a con, because the tribal leaders use it to enforce loyalty and submission. … The unity of compliance. — Jon Rappoport, Investigative Journalist
You can find the proof that ignorance is hardly ever bliss (and if so only superficial temporary fake bliss), and how you get to buy into this lie (and other self-defeating lies), in the article The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid Phenomenon …. http://www.CovidTruthBeKnown.com (or https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html)
“Separate what you know from what you THINK you know.” — Unknown
If ‘ignorance is bliss’ there should be more happy people. — Unknown
“Ignorance is the bliss of dumb animals.” — Pete, from France
ark…”Dennis wrote:
I am trying to understand how CO2 in the atmosphere can heat the surface of the earth.
Here, Let Me Google That For You”
***
This is how alarmists operate. They cannot explain the GHE or AGW in their own words, so they fly off to second-hand authority figures like Google.
I am still awaiting an explanation from any alarmist who can explain how the GHE or AGW works.
It’s the same with the Moon argument or my point that time does not exist. Rather than coming out, step by step, and explaining how the Moon can rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, spinners point to authority figures or they come up with a philosophical argument based on reference frames, or thought experiments.
When I ask people to…puleeeeze…show me where I can find time, they resort to the same philosophical arguments. If time does exist, one should be able to give concrete evidence of it. A clock is not evidence, it is a machine synchronized to the rotation of the Earth, hence does not masur time but the position of the Earth in it rotation. One would think that alone would clue them into the meaning of time, but no, people prefer illusions and dreams.
Even Einstein was taken in by time, he defined it as ‘the hand on a clock’.
> They cannot explain
Step 1 – Denial
Mr. Mr. Asshat is not Mr. Mr. Asshat for nothing!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Did you notice that you agree with Tim?
No?
So sad, too bad!
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
that will be Mr. Mr. Mr Asshat to you.
” A clock is not evidence, it is a machine synchronized to the rotation of the Earth, hence does not [measure] time but the position of the Earth in it rotation. ”
*
As always, Robertson’s endlessly repeated demêntia trash.
Time is no longer measured as ‘the position of the Earth in it rotation’, since Humanity discovered a major property of caesium atoms:
câesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). “
“I am still awaiting an explanation from any alarmist who can explain how the GHE or AGW works.”
As I’ve explained it to you many times, I have to assume that you don’t think I’m an alarmist. And you would be right.
barry,
What is it that you have explained many times? A GHE that you can’t actually describe?
That would be impressive – explaining something that doesnt exist by insisting it does!
You don’t seem to accept that the Earth continues to cool, as it must, being hotter than its environment.
Keep dreaming.
When doggy learns a new trick he’ll get a treat.
barry,
What is it that you have explained many times? A GHE that you cant actually describe?
That would be impressive explaining something that doesnt exist by insisting it does!
You dont seem to accept that the Earth continues to cool, as it must, being hotter than its environment.
Keep dreaming.
I guess he’s an old dog.
Thats ok, still waiting for Swenson to actually describe his bizarre theory about shipping containers getting hotter in the sun than greenhouses.
barry, please stop trolling.
Who Is Really Behind the Moscow Terror Attack?
Raymond Ibrahim | 12:29 PM on March 27, 2024
https://pjmedia.com/raymond-ibrahim/2024/03/27/who-is-really-behind-the-moscow-terror-attack-n4927694
–ISIS further expounded on how best to realize Koran 9:5, and so “heal Muslim hearts,” by urging the lions of Islam meaning any would-be jihadists to:
Chase your preys whether Jewish, Christian or their allies, on the streets and roads of America, Europe, and the world. Break into their homes, kill them and steal their peace of mind by any means you can lay hands on. : detonate explosives, burn them with grenades and fiery agents, shoot them with bullets, cut their throats with sharp knives, and run them over with vehicles. Come at them from every door, kill them by the worst of means, turn their gatherings and celebrations into bloody massacres, do not distinguish between a civilian kaffir [infidel], and a military one, for they are all kuffar [infidels] and the ruling against them is one.–
That they don’t like Iran, makes sense to me.
what 9:5 actually advocates is killing non-believers. Here in Canada, if you express an objection to such barbarity you are classified as Islamophobic.
Phys.org attempts to describe the GHE –
“Warming in these models is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which creates a kind of blanket in the atmosphere, trapping heat from Earth’s surface and preventing it from radiating into space.”
Not even Entropic Man’s “stack of blankets”, just a “kind of blanket”.
No way this guy is going to be accused of saying anything definite. Mind you, claiming that anything at all can prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling by “radiating into space” is just demonstrating ignorance. It happens every night, but the genius at phys.org simply rejects reality.
Maybe he’s “kind of stupid”.
swenson…as I have pointed out several times, if you had a blanket with only 0.04% of its threads, it would not keep a gnats bum warm.
ark…”Please enumerate this basic chemistry for our edification”
***
Thanks for the opportunity to reveal what a buffoon you are.
If you understood, you’d be able to address what I wrote. However, the pH level of a liquid is a balance between its acidic and alkaline content. If you had done any chemistry experiments at all, you’d know the amount of solute required to raise the pH level of a solution in a test tube.
With a level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.04%, it would require a humungous amount of CO2 forming carbonic acid to budge the ocean pH level significantly. In other words, it’s a joke to claim that amount of CO2 can change the pH balance.
Another joke is that the oceans are not even acidic, they are alkaline with a pH between 7.5 and 8.4. Anyone claiming CO2 is acidifying the oceans is a complete and utter liar.
But let’s not forget Henry’s Law. The amount of gas that can be dissolved in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas. At 0.04% of the atmosphere, there is not a hope that a significant amount of CO2 can be absorbed. Besides, only cold water can absorb it while warm water out-gasses it.
Let’s not forget that anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. The rest of it has been around forever and it has not managed to acidify the oceans. Why should adding a trifle make a difference.
Giant Mars asteroid impact creates vast field of destruction with 2 billion craters
By Robert Lea published 9 hours ago
“An asteroid struck Mars 2.3 million years ago, throwing debris across a region of the planet equal to four times the length of the Grand Canyon.”
https://www.space.com/mars-asteroid-impact-billion-craters-ejecta
Interesting. I thought would compared it to Earth, larger and most recent impactors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_structures_on_Earth#1_Ma_to_10_Ma
From article:
–“The large number of secondary craters formed by Corinto are consistent with most of the ejected material being strong, competent basalt,” the team wrote.
Basalts are volcanic rocks formed by the rapid cooling of lava rich in magnesium and iron, so the fragments likely represent lava that previously spewed from the volcano that the asteroid slammed into.–
So story is about the secondaries from it, which related to “are consistent with most of the ejected material being strong, competent basalt,” the team wrote.”
Or there lots places on Mars which doesn’t have “strong, competent basalt” and hitting such places, doesn’t give you so many [2 billion]
secondary craters.
Also in story of how it was “found”:
“This data, gathered by the spacecraft’s High-Resolution Imaging Experiment (HiRISE) and Context Camera (CTX) instruments, was given to a machine learning program that separated this impact’s ejecta-caused craters from other Martian craters originating from asteroid strike events specifically. This information was then used to estimate the age of the impact and the total number of secondary craters the initial impact generated.”
And we should find more with “a machine learning program” {is my guess}.
swenson…”You said However, I dare say I could come up with a much better explanation than wave-particle duality., but I bet you cant”.
***
My entire adult life, and several years in high school, were spent learning electronics. I learned from several sources that an electron has mass and carries a charge. One of those sources was my EE classes at university.
There is no reason for anyone, anywhere, to claim that a particle with mass has a dual identity as a wave. It’s sheer nonsense. The theory emanated from theorists unable to explain a phenomenon so they resorted to an explanation that makes absolutely no sense.
***ANY*** explanation could compete with that inanity.
The same theorists, never having seen an electron, concluded that it must also spin on an axis. They call it spin but its units are +1/2 and -1/2. They can’t even tell you where to find an electron in its orbit exactly, yet they tell you the electron is spinning +1/2 or -1/2.
Spin was invented as a theory that tries to explain something that has never been observed, never mind measured. Bohr’s original theory only covered the hydrogen atom and as things became more complex with atoms that have multiple electrons, they need to offer thought-experiments that would account for the properties of those atoms.
It’s the same with this nonsense about wave-particle duality.
I just offered an explanation, agreed to by Bohm, one of the greatest physicists ever. He claimed the slit must possess a quantum potential but he did not define what that is. I feel the same way. Something in the slit is interacting with the electrons to divert them from their path, creating diffraction patterns.
Guess what? The slit is made up of atoms and those atoms have electrons. Like charges repel and all that. Also, the electrons bombarding the slit area are bound to create currents around the slit and those form magnetic fields.
A beam of electrons is a beam of particles with known mass. They do not resemble a wave and anyone who thinks they do is an ijit. Next thing they’ll be telling us is that a similar beam in an electron microscope is not a beam of particles but a wave with a frequency.
Ironically I have seen that very mistake offered re EMs. An EM beam bombards the target and actually causes disintegration when solid electrons interact with electrons and protons in atoms of the target. One article alluded to the frequency of the beam which must be D.C in order for it to work. AC current will not work in an EM.
Gordon,
Two slit experiment with electrons show the same results as those with photons.
Don’t count which slit the electrons go through – interference pattern.
Count the electrons – no interference pattern.
Whether you like it or not. Whether anyone likes it or not. That’s what happens. Just as quantum electrodynamics predicts.
You dont even have to believe it. Nature doesn’t seem to care.
> By the same reasoning, if you cover a greenhouse it should not warm either.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat ought to know:
https://blog.bcgreenhouses.com/how-to-cool-down-your-greenhouse
Or he ought not.
I said ***cover***, not use a transparent netting that diminishes the full solar energy. If you covered yourself with just one of those on a cold winter’s night, you’d be sorry.
> I said ***cover***
Mr. Mr. Asshat keeps digging:
Op. Cit.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Good 180 turn.
What are you recommending – shade cloth, trees, both, or neither?
Maybe you should place your faith in a GHE which heats, cools, or does nothing at all – depending on your wishes!
If you think I’m wrong, please support your disagreement with facts, dummy!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Good 180 turn.
What are you recommending shade cloth, trees, both, or neither?
Maybe you should place your faith in a GHE which heats, cools, or does nothing at all depending on your wishes!
If you think Im wrong, please support your disagreement with facts, dummy!
Or just keep running away.
Mike Flynn,
Heres you in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Why are you still here?
Mike Flynn,
180 turn?
What are you braying about?
My recommendation is that you continue being the crank you always were.
Silly sock puppet!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Good 180 turn.
What are you recommending shade cloth, trees, both, or neither?
Maybe you should place your faith in a GHE which heats, cools, or does nothing at all depending on your wishes!
If you think Im wrong, please support your disagreement with facts, dummy!
Or scuttle away like the cockroach you so closely resemble!
Mike Flynn,
Heres you in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Why are you still here?
Weird Wee Willy,
From your source –
“In a moderate climate, the best choice for keeping a greenhouse above freezing is a small electric heater. For larger greenhouses or small greenhouses in cold climates or those requiring a hot house environment, we would recommend electric, propane, or Natural gas heaters.”
Dang. Real greenhouses drop below freezing, do they? This might be soul-shattering news for Ball4, but not to anybody who understands physics – or accepts reality.
Maybe real greenhouses could benefit from the non-existent “greenhouse effect”, except that the GHE is non-existent!
Try harder – your attempts at diversion aren’t working all that well, are they?
Maybe you could appeal for support to your buddy “Roy”? Or “Mike Flynn”?
Mike Flynn,
My buddy Roy?
You, my buddy?
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
From your source
“In a moderate climate, the best choice for keeping a greenhouse above freezing is a small electric heater. For larger greenhouses or small greenhouses in cold climates or those requiring a hot house environment, we would recommend electric, propane, or Natural gas heaters.”
Dang. Real greenhouses drop below freezing, do they? This might be soul-shattering news for Ball4, but not to anybody who understands physics or accepts reality.
Maybe real greenhouses could benefit from the non-existent “greenhouse effect”, except that the GHE is non-existent!
Try harder your attempts at diversion arent working all that well, are they?
Maybe you could appeal for support to your buddy “Roy”? Or “Mike Flynn”?
You have appealed to the authority of both, in the past, I believe. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s you in 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Why are you still here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
re Feynman…when I was younger I tended to hero-worship scientists like Einstein and Feynman. I failed to notice Feynman’s colossal ego and his ego actually enhanced his stature in my eyes.
That started to change when I watched a lecture he gave in New Zealand. During the lecture, his ego peaked as he suggested the audience was too stoopid to understand his science. He claimed directly that it would be a waste of time explaining it because it involved science no one understood, even him.
Then he went on to claim that if you don’t agree with his science, you are wrong.
I would like to know exactly what he has done. He is famous for quantum electrodynamics but what is that exactly? Bethe recalled at a conference re Feynman that Feynman came with his completely new ideas, which among other things involved positrons going backwards in time. And Niels Bohr was shocked, that couldnt possibly be true, and gave Feynman a very hard time.
Positrons going back ward in time??? Don’t get me started.
I’d say it’s safe to say that neither of us know what Feynman was talking about and neither, it turns out, did he.
My hero worship days are over and I regard both Einstein and Feynman with suspicion. I don’t exclude myself misunderstanding both, but from what I have seen there is a whole lot of speculation in their work, and none of the proof Feynman claimed.
The above was a reply to Swenson which obvious got mis-posted.
Gordon,
As far as I know, no experiment has ever been shown to contradict quantum electrodynamic theory.
Feynman said “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,”, and that certainly includes me. As for things going backward in time, time is a tricky concept.
As Feynman wrote “the electron emits a photon, then travel backwards in time to absorb a photon and then proceeds forwards in time again”. If you can devise an experiment to show that this is not true, you will probably be the first.
A photon takes no time at all to reach the speed of light, and does this regardless of any inertial frame of reference. In some instances, to explain experimental results, virtual (non-existent) photons are needed to explain how certain things occur in reality.
And no, I can’t explain why. I also can’t explain why the uncertainty principle exists, or why gravity exists, or chaos, or what energy keeps atoms being atoms even at absolute zero.
Feynman summed things up fairly well in (in relation to probability amplitudes anyway), when he said “you can have all the philosophical worries you want as to what amplitudes mean (if, indeed they mean anything at all), but because physics is an experimental science and the framework agrees with experiment, its good enough for us so far”
I take the view that nature doesn’t care what I think, so I might just as well accept reality, and enjoy life. So far, so good.
Uh! Exceptional, an excellent contribution from Swenson.
The last time you read a text of such outstanding quality from Swenson was many years ago. At the time it was already an intelligent reaction to Robertson’s constant nonsense – it was about the latter’s denial that GPS couldn’t work without relativistic corrections.
At that time he gave himself the nickname ‘Mike Flynn’.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Uh! Exceptional, an excellent contribution from Swenson.”
Thank you for your encomium. If I said it means so much to me, I would be laughing at you, so,I won’t.
Were you attempting sarcasm?
Mike Flynn,
How can one *attempt sarcasm*?
Silly sock puppet!
No.
Bindidon,
In that case, I accept your congratulations when you wrote –
“Exceptional, an excellent contribution from Swenson.”
I thought you may have been attempting sarcasm. I apologise for so thinking.
I accept flattery from anyone, including fanatical GHE cultists. Do you still consider yourself such?
“I take the view that nature doesnt care what I think”
For once Swenson is quite correct.
Greenhouses do get warm in the sun, regardless of his thinking that they shouldn’t.
Nate,
You wrote “Greenhouses do get warm in the sun”.
Congratulations. You just refuse to accept that they cool at night, don’t you? Or during the winter?
NASA says “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter”. Who are you to believe -me or NASA? You believe NASA, of course, because you are ignorant and gullible.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. I’ll wait.
” You just refuse to accept that they cool at night, dont you?”
Does Swenson think ‘in the sun’ means ‘at night’?
Is he leaking brain fluid again? That stuff leaves a nasty stain on the furniture!
“A steel shipping container in the sun gets far hotter than a greenhouse.”
Nature really doesnt care for this strange thought of yours, that seems to indicate a severe mental deficiency.
Nate,
You wrote Greenhouses do get warm in the sun.
Congratulations. You just refuse to accept that they cool at night, dont you? Or during the winter?
NASA says “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter”. Who are you to believe -me or NASA? You believe NASA, of course, because you are ignorant and gullible.
Feel free to correct me if Im wrong. Ill wait.
Or you can just keep babbling irrelevant nonsense.
“Does Swenson still think in the sun means at night?
Obviously he can’t read what people post.
Nate,
You wrote “Greenhouses do get warm in the sun”.
Congratulations. You just refuse to accept that they cool at night, don’t you? Or during the winter?
NASA says “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter”. Who are you to believe -me or NASA? You believe NASA, of course, because you are ignorant and gullible.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. I’ll wait.
Or you can just keep babbling irrelevant nonsense, like “Does Swenson think in the sun means at night”?
I’m still waiting for you to correct me (a fact or two to support your contention might help to convince others that you are not just another fanatical GHE cultist, of course).
Oh well, I get criticised.
Criticism from the mentally afflicted doesnt affect me. Actually, nor does criticism from anybody else.
My perception of reality is either correct, or it isn’t .
Nature isn’t affected either way.
There is no GHE, and reality seems to support me. Dimwits and fanatical GHE cultists can believe whatever they like.
Mike Flynn,
You said it better than Charles Manson.
Well played!
“My perception of reality is either correct, or it isnt . ”
It isn’t.
EM,
Are you appealing to your own infallible authority again?
Keep it up. Someone more gullible and ignorant than you may value your unsupported opinion, but I dont.
Very good of you to admit defeat and throw in the towel.
Why don’t you move on with your life and do something useful.
Because I was referring to Swenson.
DMT,
You are obviously locked in some fantasy world.
What are you talking about? You are making no sense at all. Which imaginary opponent are you claiming to have defeated?
Are you quite mad, or just pretending (for some reason which you are not prepared to divulge)?
“My perception of reality is either correct, or it isnt.”
Such a lame statement.
Like saying, “the flipped coin will be heads or tails”. Perfectly correct, but absolutely of no use whatsoever.
As useful as tits on a bull is the expression.
Why dont you move on with your life and do something useful?
DMT,
You are obviously locked in some fantasy world.
What are you talking about? You are making no sense at all. Which imaginary opponent are you claiming to have defeated?
Are you quite mad, or just pretending (for some reason which you are not prepared to divulge)?
You don’t have to answer, if you don’t feel like it.
Mindless repetition.
Classic signs of dementia.
Probably not helped by spending all your time in front of a screen.
Is there anybody else in the house who can look after you?
To all who responded to mt call for HELP – YHANK YOU! It would seem there is no answer that is indisputable. With todays science seems hard to believe the process is well understood.
Science is never indisputable.
If you want indisputable ask a politician or a priest.
“If you want indisputable ask a politician or a priest.”
Or a cultist….
Clint,
Didn’t one of them say “The science is settled”?
More generally, cultists like Barack Obama utter misleading absurdities like –
“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”, when nobody of sound mind has ever denied that weather changes constantly! Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations of course, so the cultist Obama is claiming the settlement of a non-existent debate!
Maybe Mencken was right when he wrote “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”, implying that the level of intelligence of the American people was quite low.
Certainly many of them believe in the miraculous heating powers of CO2!
Mencken was quite un-American. He once described the American attempt at democracy as “the worship of jackals by jackasses?
He just didn’t understand how much fun it is….
Clint,
I like Winston Churchill’s quote –
“Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time . . . ”
I try to live a quiet life in spite of the Government’s efforts to thwart me. So far, so good.
“It would seem there is no answer that is indisputable.”
I can’t dispute that unicorns live inside Pluto. I guess it’s 50/50 whether they do or not?
barry,
I assume that they don’t exist, until reproducible experiment demonstrates otherwise.
The same for the GHE, but it’s even worse in that case. At least you can describe unicorns and Pluto, but you can’t describe the GHE!
Good luck with devising an experiment to show the existence of something you can’t describe!
Keep dreaming.
Love how you keep fetching that stick. Good boy!
barry,
I assume that they dont exist, until reproducible experiment demonstrates otherwise.
The same for the GHE, but its even worse in that case. At least you can describe unicorns and Pluto, but you cant describe the GHE!
Good luck with devising an experiment to show the existence of something you cant describe!
Keep dreaming.
As physicst Will Happer put it, climate change theory is a scam. He said he’d settle for hoax, but he likes scam better.
There is a political motivation behind global warming/climate change. In the 1960s, the UN started along a path to find a way to implement global taxation. Their aim was to help out poorer countries, which is a good thing, albeit risky, and they needed a vehicle. When UK PM Margaret Thatcher, who has a degree in chemistry, lectured a UN assembly on the effects of coal emission in the atmosphere, she presented them with the means.
BTW…Thatchers motivation was gaining control of coal mining union. She needed an excuse to shut them down, the devious old b**** she was.
The UN came up with the IPCC in the late 1980s, who were presented a mission to find only evidence of anthropogenic warming. As a favour to Thatcher, they appointed John Houghton, a protrege of Thacher and a climate modeler, as co-chair. Houghton led the IPCC down the garden path of climate model alarm.
From its modern inception, global warming/climate change theory has been in the hands of politicians. Other opportunist have taken advantage by furthering their own agendas under the guise of climate change hysteria.
The science of AGW predates all that. Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, Revelle, Keeling, Manabe, Weatherald, Ramanathan and Coakley are only the better known of researchers who published on AGW and issues closely related to it before Thatcher and the IPCC.
Thatcher stepped back from her concerns about AGW later in life, seeming to base her antipathy on the left having taken an abiding interest. Her 21st century criticism was steeped in politics, having abandoned the science as too “obscure.”
“As a favour to Thatcher, they appointed John Houghton, a protrege of Thacher and a climate modeler, as co-chair”
I’m sure this bit of narrative, like so many others you espouse, is completely fabricated. Houghton’s involvement in the IPCC was from the ground up, he wasn’t spirited there by some imaginary appointment body. And there is no record of Houghton being Thatcher’s ‘protege’. All this is just concocted from thin air.
Why don’t you write fiction, Robertson? You have a knack.
Thanks, Dennis although I may not be one of those posters whose thinking matches your expectations.
*
” With today’s science seems hard to believe the process is well understood. ”
The problem is the gap between those who accept papers like this one:
L'effet de serre atmosphérique : plus subtil qu'on ne le croit !
Jean-Louis Dufresne / Jacques Treiner (2011)
https://tinyurl.com/Dufresne-Treiner
and those who reject or even denŷ it even if they didn’t read any more than the English version of the paper’s abstract.
*
This is why it makes no sense to me to provide an English translation of their work: I remember too well the ridiculous, insâne stûpidity of the Robertson boy, who polemically discredited my translation of Lagrange’s introduction to his genial proof of the lunar spin:
https://tinyurl.com/Lagrange-lunar-spin-intro
Robertson (and all his acolytes) understood none of this introduction, let alone the theory that followed it: it was based on three-dimensional differential equations that were half a universe beyond their infinitesimal mathematical abilities.
*
Stay tuned to everything, no matter what direction!
Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water April 25th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Hear! Hear!
Correct Ark. There is no GHE.
Hey Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111707
You were there already!
Waffling Wee Willy,
You seem to be interested in some anonymous person asking Dr Spencer to ban some other anonymous persons.
Why the interest? What happened?
Why do you post such inane nonsense?
Questions, questions!
Mike Flynn,
You were there too:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111819
Silly sock puppet!
Waffling Wee Willy,
You seem to be interested in some anonymous person asking Dr Spencer to ban some other anonymous persons.
Why the interest? What happened?
Why do you post such inane nonsense?
Questions, questions!
Still no answers? Just more diversionary silliness?
Mike Flynn,
You seem interested in deflecting from the fact that you and Puffman commented in that 2014.
Do you think you’ll succeed?
Questions! Questions!
Cheers.
Waffling Wee Willy,
You seem to be interested in some anonymous person asking Dr Spencer to ban some other anonymous persons.
Why the interest? What happened?
Why do you post such inane nonsense?
Questions, questions!
Still no answers? Just more diversionary silliness?
Mike Flynn,
You seem interested in deflecting from the fact that Puffman asked for bans and he get em.
Silly sock puppets!
Cheers.
Clint R
YOU: “Correct Ark. There is no GHE.”
I see you continue to subject posters to your unsupported opinions.
Again you will not provide any evidence to support your non-science opinion. I have offered you much science evidence that your opinions are wrong. You will not accept any evidence that suggests you opinions are false. Why is that?
Norman, as I’ve explained before, I don’t attempt to teach physics to children.
Lose the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, and I’ll try to help.
Norman,
“Again you will not provide any evidence to support your non-science opinion.”
No, by definition there is no evidence to prove non-existence of an object. Even Kevin Trenberth commented that it was a “travesty” that neither he nor any other so-called climate scientist could find evidence of supposedly missing heat.
What scientific evidence would suffice to satisfy you that Trenberth’s “missing heat” is actually missing ie, not there? Or that there is an absence of purple-spotted unicorns on Mars?
Do you think you might find the GHE on the shelf between “caloric” and “phlogiston”?
Only joking, fanatical GHE cultists believe in all sorts of non-existent stuff – Michael,Mann’s Nobel Prize, Gavin Schmidt’s science degree, the GHE, and so on.
Dream on.
Clint R
What insults did you find in my post to your incorrect opinion?
Saying that you post your opinions with no supporting evidence is not an “insult”. It is suggesting that you need to support your claims with evidence.
Your opinion that I am “insulting” you now seems to be more of your unsupported opinions (which you think is an insult to state).
Norman claiming my opinions are incorrect is just your own incorrect opinion. Insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and incorrect opinions are all you have.
All of your opinions are based on your cult beliefs. You have no valid understanding of science. You make things up, like “orbits that are square”. You went through a long period of anal fixation, trying to insult me. You’re a cult child.
Grow up, and I’ll try to help.
Clint R
Basically you will ramble on and avoid evidence. It is your Cult mind at work. You attack me because I expose your phony tactics. You want to mislead the gullible ignorant that think your opinions matter. I am exposing you for the fraud you are and you do not like this.
On the other section of your post you expose you are a liar and dishonest poster. I have seen this corrupt behavior of yours before so it is not new. I have NEVER claimed that orbits are square. You have falsely made this up about me and use it when you get frustrated that I am exposing you as an unscientific cult minded poster.
Your false nature is exposed for all to see. Even the crackpot Gordon Robertson knows you are a fraud who has no science background.
Only DREMT seems to agree with you and he is also a poster who has no science background.
Hopefully enough posters will see you are a lying fraud and reject all false unscientific information you post on this blog.
Norma, surely you aren’t going to deny you tried to use a square orbit in an effort to incompetently invent a model of “orbiting without spin”, are you?
Deny your own nonsense! That’s why this is so much fun.
Hey Puffman,
Square orbits –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657250
Keep your IT menial job.
“Only DREMT seems to agree with you and he is also a poster who has no science background.”
Actually, I have a science degree.
A,
Oooooh! Appealing to authority, are you?
Maybe you could start by describing this “greenhouse effect” which you claim exists?
Or you could just provide links which don’t lead to valid descriptions of the greenhouse effect, and hope nobody will notice.
Maybe you don’t realise that saying “I am talking about the fact that the surface temperature of the microbolometer is being changed by IR emission from the sky. THAT IS the greenhouse effect.” Is not terribly satisfactory. All gases in the atmosphere radiate IR. Quite intensely, being hot enough to remain gaseous. Just saying that a thermometer responds to heat is not really describing “the greenhouse effect”. Maybe your authority has provided a better description more recently – your first link is 10 years old, after all.
Entropic Man emphatically stated “The GHE is a stack of blankets”, and he claims scientific infallibility! On the other hand, Raymond Pierrehumbert claims CO2 is “just planetary insulation”, and avoids describing the GHE at all!
There is no GHE. Even Bindidon has lost faith in the ability of CO2 to heat the planet.
You can’t actually describe the GHE in any valid way, but have convinced yourself that it must exist, rejecting reality in the process. That’s fanatical GHE cultist thinking.
Keep dreaming.
It’s Roy’s blog and he calls the shots. The thing that has impressed me is that he lets GHE opponents have their say, whereas blogs like realclimate and WUWT have banned people for speaking their minds on the subject.
When Roy reacted to those alleged supporters of the Slaying the Sky Dragon book, they were likely wannabees that thought they understood the message in the book. I would likely have argued with them myself and I recently related why.
One of the authors of STSG, Claes Johnson, wrote his objection to back-radiation and it was only recently I clued into what he meant. He took back-radiation to mean a transfer of heat from a colder region of space to a warmer surface. Obviously, back radiation as pure radiation exists but climate alarmists had presented it as a transfer of heat.
I imagine that certain wannabees came onto Roy’s site and began preaching that back-radiation does not exist. Of course it exist, CO2 molecules radiate isotropically and a portion of that radiation has to reach the surface. However, alarmists have been preaching that such radiation from colder sources of GHG can transfer heat to the surface, not only making up for losses, but raising surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy.
> Its Roys blog and he calls the shots.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat is right:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Puffman got banned. Mike Flynn returned under various sock poppets.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
Your post March 28 at 9:34pm re CO2 in the oceans.
There is a good TED talk perhaps you have seen or even attended as it was in Vancouver. It is by Penny Chisholm and titled “The tiny creatures that secretly power the earth” that talks to about Prochlorococcus in the oceans of the world that with sunlight convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen in very large quantities.
Dennis,
An unknown biomass of fish and other animals put an unknown amount of CO2 directly into the oceans.
The eventual destination of the carbon and oxygen can only be guessed at.
Still no GHE involved, but interesting nevertheless.
The point is Dennis, those tiny whatevers would have been converting CO2 to carbon and oxygen in the water long before humans began emitting CO2 in earnest. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the air by 4% won’t make a lot of difference.
I watched her propaganda to about the 3/4 mark when she started braying about global warming and greenhouse gases and shut her off. I knew what to expect when she opened her talk spreading propaganda about evolution but I thought I’d hear her out.
She talk about evolution as if it is a fact yet not one scientists has proved it. Scientists today talking about evolution are actually talking about genetics, a study that involves only one species at a time. They completely ignore the source of evolution, abiogenesis, which is a process that would convert ordinary elements like carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc., into life.
In the 1950s they held a symposium in Chicago to try proving it and failed. In the 1950s, they tried to create life by combining essential elements and all they got was a puddle of goo. It was the conclusion that got me, however, that even if they had created life the conditions required to produce life could not possibly have sustained it.
A basic clue to her personality is the way she dresses. She wears a scarf around her neck to hide the ravages of aging and a loose top to hide any bulges. She is an egotist who cannot deal with reality and that comes out in her stance on global warming.
Scientist can’t have it both ays, it is not possible to be objective and and egotist at the same time. If you observe climmte alarmists they all have ego issues. In their limited brains, they think they can control the way Earth operates, and that the rest of humanity depends on them to save the planet.
The crux of her argument is that we are releasing carbon sequestered in the Earth at a fast rate relatively speaking. I did not see her talking about the 96% of CO2 that is released naturally by the land surface and the oceans.
Sorry, but she is yet another bs artist hiding behind the guise of science.
Gordon,
I didnt watch, but did she mention that burning fossil fuels merely return to the atmosphere some of what has been removed in the past?
If this past sequestration occurred, then CO2 levels in the past were obviously far higher than now – but the planet cooled anyway!
CO2 was obviously unable to prevent the planet cooling! Fast or slow makes no difference. The present temperature is what it is – not what it would be, could be, or should be.
The atmosphere is chaotic. Predicting future climate states is not possible. No GHE – not even a little bit.
What she said was that carbon has been sequestered in the ground and is now being removed, causing global warming.
Gordon,
So when there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere (before it went into the ground) it caused cooling?
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Nonsense it is.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Epicycles, complex Fourier series and Homer Simpson’s orbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA
Time for a repost…
When I first posted this, NH anomaly had just reached +0.93. Now, four of the five months since, have exceeded +1.00 with a high of +1.06. Truly astounding.
“We are sure about some things. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we are emitting a lot of it, and the planet is heating up. Case closed.”
Well, yes, CO2 is found in greenhouses, and levels are often artificially increased to increase production. Yes, we exhale CO2, and eight billion humans emit a lot.
The planet is not heating up, it is cooling. According to measurements by geophysicists and geologists (going back to the early 19th century), the current rate of cooling is in the millionths of a Kelvin per annum range.
Case closed? Surety? The science is settled perhaps?
Keep dreaming. Try extracting a valid description of the GHE from your dreams. Write it down. Post it here, and give me (and maybe others) a good laugh.
Off you go now.
” The planet is not heating up, it is cooling.
According to measurements by geophysicists and geologists (going back to the early 19th century), the current rate of cooling is in the millionths of a Kelvin per annum range. ”
*
Oh… Now, Swenson comes back down to Flynnson’s stoopidity, and again deserves being called Flynnson.
Off YOU go now, Flynnson. Unfortunately, way, way not far enough away to notice :–(
ark…”We are sure about some things. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we are emitting a lot of it, and the planet is heating up. Case closed”.
***
You, or some other blithering ijit is clearly deluded, the case is not closed. In fact, the case has never been established. It is a scam being perpetuated by ignoramuses.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”As Feynman wrote the electron emits a photon, then travel backwards in time to absorb a photon and then proceeds forwards in time again. If you can devise an experiment to show that this is not true, you will probably be the first”.
***
The following, or my last post on the subject, was not intended to be offensive or argumentative, so hopefully you will receive what I write objectively, or at least, as advancing dementia. No offense intended, I still enjoy your posts.
I was having a bad hair day when I unloaded on Feynman and he became my target. My objection to Feynman’s point in your quote is the photon moving through time. There is nothing to move through, ergo, he was wrong. Bohr apparently let him know that in no uncertain terms.
I appreciate the brain power of Feynman. He was obviously respected at Los Alamos when the A-bomb was invented but as has been pointed out, those scientist involved were regarded as super-heroes afterward and could do no wrong.
Apparently Feynman started out as a mathematician, transferred to electrical engineering, then to theoretical physics. I feel strongly that we must resist the attempts of theoretical physicists to pass off their theories as science when they admit, as Feynman has done, that they don’t even understand the theories themselves.
Obviously, I know nothing about quantum electrodynamics, but when scientists involved in the field claim they don’t understand it either, I tend to become skeptical.
The field of electrodynamics, and I don’t understand the difference, was wrong about electrons. They felt an orbiting electron would lose momentum and fall into the nucleus. Bohr fixed that issue by restraining electrons to quantum orbits, akin to planets that have sufficient momentum to prevent them falling into the Sun. Why could electrons not have the same property?
I was reading a bit on it last night and one thing struck me that I do understand. They used mathematical series, and no matter what thy tried, the series diverged to infinity. To get around that problem, they shortened the series to remove the infinity divergence problem and worked with that. A bit of cheating, eh wot?
Well, you remember what Mann et al did when their proxy series of tree rings began to show lower temperatures in the 1960s. They cut off the series and added real temperatures.
I honestly have no idea what good quantum electrodynamics does and I’d dearly like to hear from someone who does.
About mathematical series and divergence. A similar problem was what scientists called the ultraviolet catastrophe. Radiation intensity was related to the frequency of the radiation by…
E = hf
It was hypothesized that as f -> infinity, then E -> infinity would prove catastrophic. Planck won fame by offering a solution to the problem.
It was known that radiation intensity actually decreased beyond a certain frequency which exists as the yellow and green colours of the spectrum. Planck hypothesized the the amount of radiation available peaked in the yellow-green ranged them decrease. Although UV is very intense, there apparently isn’t a lot of it.
So, Planck had to work toward what was known and he developed an equation with exponential fudge factors that would reduce EM intensity beyond the peak frequencies.
When you look at the problem after the fact, when electrons were discovered, the frequencies that an electron can emit are related to its orbital angular speeds. Planck lamented, that had he known that, it would have saved him much grief.
Gordon,
I didn’t take offense – I didnt think you intended any. I generally decline to feel offended, annoyed or insulted, particularly by people whose opinions I don’t place a high value on.
As to quantum physics, the uncertainty principle, chaos, and similar oddities, I rather like Feynman’s quote “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”
I suppose it echoes my thinking that if something works, it works – whether it “should” or not.
Have fun. If you ever find someone who truly understands quantum physics, let me know. I’ve got a few questions of the “no-one really knows why” variety. I certainly don’t.
Problem is, quantum mechanics doesn’t really describe anything. It is basically mathematical theory added to Bohr’s initial theory that atoms are a nucleus of protons and neutrons orbited by electrons in a very orderly fashion.
To move beyond the simple one proton-one electron hydrogen atom that Bohr modeled, Schrodinger came up with a set of differential equations based on the potential and kinetic energy of electrons in various orbitals. The equations don’t tell us much about the individual electrons other than hypothesizing a probability distribution of where the electrons are most likely to be found.
Pauling put the equations to good use in the 1920s/30s but he had to modify the equations slightly to make them work for molecules. He eventually came up with shapes for most known molecules. I recall studying that in the organic chemistry section of a chemistry course but there were ways of determining the shapes without going into Shrodinger’s equations.
You just can’t visualize Shroddy’s equations, thy are all math related to probability, etc.
If you look at the origins for Bohr, he gained insight after a friend urged him to review what was known about hydrogen emissions and absorp-tions. The frequencies, that is, which were all discrete frequencies within a fraction of a cycle. He used that information to guess at how electrons would need to behave in order to emit such EM frequencies.
Basically, he hypothesized that electrons could not be found in just any orbital but in discrete energy orbital levels, that agreed with Planck’s energy levels related to ‘h’. Of course, that worked only for hydrogen and sometimes helium under certain conditions. It was when he tried to apply the theory to atoms with more than 2 electrons his theory failed.
That’s when theorists like Dirac and Heisenberg got into the act, essentially making up theories that would account for electrons in multiple orbitals.
Personally, I find it all rather flaky. As Feynman claimed, it works, but no one knows why. To make it work for molecules, Pauling had to apply his deep knowledge of molecular shapes garnered through xray diffraction studies. After having worked and studied in the electronics field most of my adult life, I cannot see electrons behaving as perfectly as quantum theory professes.
Imagine it based on our solar system as a model. With more complex atoms you’d have 30 or more planets orbiting the Sun but not in a neat plane as most of our planets orbit. There would be orbits randomly going all over the place. So, how would that come about since it would appear most planets have been captured by the Sun and that would require an intricate set of momenta for each planet. Same with electrons.
Many scientists today don’t like talking about orbits, eschewing that part of the theory for differential equation theory. Even worse, electrons not only have to orbit the nucleus, as prescribed by Bohr, they must also interact with electrons in other atoms in two basic forms of bonding. Some atoms have multiple orbits with some of them containing 18 electrons.
That lead to the rule makers like Pauli coming up with his exclusion principle and others introducing spinning electrons that spin +1/2 and -1/2.
No one has prove any of this for the simple reason it cannot be proved. Until we find a way to actually see electrons operating around a nucleus, it is all theory. I won’t hold my breath that the current quantum theory will hold up. As David Bohm put it, both Newtonian theory and quantum theory have reached the ends of their respective roads and we may have to start all over again.
Gordon Robertson
You do not have to “see” electrons to get understanding of their behavior. You can find out a lot by experiment and logical thinking (what science is based upon, logical rational thinking). Science can get things wrong but it is a process of discovery. They continue to think, use rational logical thought, set up experiments (based upon logical thought process) and gain new understanding.
Have you ever heard of the p-orbital? It was inferred by looking at molecular shapes. Explain how a p-orbital orbits in the conventional sense.
You state that scientist seem to know nothing but you have never studied the many many experiments that have been done to verify or reject various ideas. Good science is NOT opinion (like you, Clint R and Swesnson believe it to be).
You should study the research that has been done in Quantum Mechanics before you conclude that they know nothing of the topic.
Norman, you wrote “You can find out a lot by experiment and logical thinking (what science is based upon, logical rational thinking).”
What have you ever found out by logical thinking? You can’t describe the GHE, or say what it is supposed to do, but you won’t deny that the GHE exists! You think that logical? You are just weird!
I agree with Feynman on many things (which means that he is obviously a clever fellow), and as he 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.”
Go on – disagree, and say why. Or accept that both Feynman and myself know far more than you are ever likely to.
There is no GHE.
There was some more confusion in the cult this week involving “angular momentum”. Even simple concepts can be confusing when you have no understanding of basic physics.
The confusion was based on the cult kids not understanding that angular momentum only applies to objects in physical contact, specifically solids and fluids. A small asteroid passing Moon would experience no angular momentum. The cult would incorrectly apply the mathematical construct, mrv, where m is the mass, r is the distance, and v is the speed. But, that calculation does NOT apply to non-contact objects in a vacuum.
I offered some hints to help the kids understand, but the concepts were too far over their heads:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1656969
You can’t help stoopid….
Clint R
” The confusion was based on the cult kids not understanding that angular momentum only applies to objects in physical contact, specifically solids and fluids. ”
*
As always, YOU, Clint R, are the one whop keeps stoopid.
Simply because people you, who apparently were under the care of an extremely religious and very strict father until even after puberty, were never able to really grow out of childhood and therefore fundamentally reject everything that they did not learn from their father.
This is also why you constantly refer to anyone who doesn’t share your father’s dictated opinion as a ‘child’.
*
The angular momentum applies to every body into which it is introduced – regardless of the cause.
One of the possible causes is the long time ago adopted fact that both orbiting and rotating are born together in stellar and planetary accretion disks.
But… of course: Since your father (and everyone you consider to be worthy of your father’s advice) didn’t (don’t) think that way, you’ll never have the chance to even think about it, let alone actively adopt such a thought.
Angular momentum applies to objects in physical contact and in orbit. Clint is just amusingly unaware the calculation does apply in both situations. Clint can help being stoopid but doesn’t bother which is good for the blog’s entertainment side.
Btw, a small asteroid passing the Moon could experience measurable angular momentum change and Clint is blissfully unaware. Decent entertainment though.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Bindi. That’s rare in your cult.
But typical of your cult, you offer only your opinions devoid of any science.
And the fact that Ball4 joins your effort to attack me only adds to my credibility. Nothing wrong with credibility….
Clint’s belief in his added credibility is indeed added blog entertainment. Nothing wrong with added entertainment.
“The confusion was based on the cult kids not understanding that angular momentum only applies to objects in physical contact”
Nah, even clueless Clint admitted this was wrong. Self-goal!
“The string provided angular momentum to the ball. So when the string broke, the ball maintained that angular momentum.”
Keep proving me right, Nate.
I can take it.
So does angular momentum only apply to objects in physical contact, or not?
You seem to want to have it both ways.
Gordon Robertson “…electrons not only have to orbit the nucleus, as prescribed by Bohr,”
Thanks for the opportunity to reveal what a buffoon you are.
Indeed, electrons are not miniature cannonballs orbiting another miniature cannonballs. Atoms are not miniature solar systems either.
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 thin atmosphere, Earth included),
when comparing their the satellite measured the average surface temperatures (Tsat),the 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.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, at some N a planet just melts? Or at N=0, the planet’s temperature is below any T ever measured? Appears Christos’ formulas need some improvement.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“So, at some N a planet just melts? Or at N=0, the planets temperature is below any T ever measured? Appears Christos formulas need some improvement.”
–
Please, Ball4, help to improve the formulas.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos can improve his formula by adding in the all-sky emission to surface in his 1LOT energy balance and deleting the 0.47 fudge factor.
So, recently I discovered that the concept of "absolute rotation" has been debated in physics for decades, so was pleasantly surprised to find that something I’d come up with independently already existed. Expanding on the idea of "absolute rotation", which is that rotation of objects can be an "absolute", objective fact regardless of frame of reference, I’m going to add that "what axis the rotation occurs about" is equally important.
For example, a small chalk circle drawn on top of a rotating merry-go-round platform, towards the outside edge of the platform, is objectively rotating. That’s an "absolute" fact, since the merry-go-round is itself rotating, and is powered to do so. What needs to be added is that the chalk circle is objectively rotating about an axis in the centre of the merry-go-round, and is objectively not rotating about its own internal axis.
To expand on this, consider the two motions at the heart of the "moon debate" – the "moon on the left" (MOTL) and "moon on the right" (MOTR) from the tidal locking GIF. These motions can be described in the following ways, kinematically:
MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
MOTR:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Some might argue that the chalk circle’s motion could be described as MOTL (b). However, I’d argue that this description does not apply, as mechanically what is occurring is that the merry-go-round platform is rotating. The chalk circle is not physically being translated in a circle, whilst a separate motor spins it on its internal axis. You need to go beyond kinematics, to look at the mechanics behind the motion, to judge how it’s absolutely moving.
To further explain this, we can look at an example Tim Folkerts provided up-thread:
"Suppose I have two devices. One is an old-time record player with a toy horse mounted on top of a small stick moving in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. The other has a modern x-y plotter moving a small electric motor with a toy horse mounted on top of the shaft. The plotter and motor are programmed to move the horse in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. Both toy horse execute EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION."
Tim claims it is "exactly the same motion", but in reality, the mechanics behind the motions are different. The XY Plotter horse is objectively moving as per the MOTL (b), whilst the record player horse is objectively moving as per the MOTL (a).
So, these are extra considerations to add to the concept of "absolute rotation".
The tidal locking GIF with the two moons, MOTL and MOTR:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Link to the Wikipedia entry on “absolute rotation”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
The wiki link ref. by Max Born explains the concept of “absolute rotation” is just the widely recognized: “favored position of inertial systems.” – Born, 1962.
DREMT’s “to judge how it’s absolutely moving” position is simply about movement observed in inertial systems vs. accelerated systems. Once the accelerated ref. system movement is accounted, the inertia of the object in the accelerated system is the same as in an inertial system. DREMT’s own discovered concept of absolute rotation simply realizes DREMT’s improved understanding of the concept of inertial rotation.
Move DREMT’s chalk circle to center of thy spinning mgr and the chalk circle has a motion of only rotation on its own axis. Move the center of the chalk circle say 1mm off mgr center and the chalk circle gains nonzero translation in a circle and retains its rotation on its own axis wrt the mgr inertial center.
” Link to the Wikipedia entry… ”
… m.wikipedia …
This is NOT Wikipedia, DREMT: it is WikipediA.
You see the difference best when comparing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
to the original Wiki source.
Bindidon 11:42 am, if you prefer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
Both links state: “absolute rotation relative to these stars” which as Max Born 1962, Dover Publication, p. 78 wrote:
is just the widely recognized: “favored position of inertial systems.”
As so often, your rather egotistic explanations don’t contribute to an increase of understanding, but actually increase doubt.
You aren’t about to understand this.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
As so often, your rather egotistic explanations dont contribute to an increase of understanding, but actually increase doubt.
You arent about to understand this.
"The wiki link ref. by Max Born explains the concept of “absolute rotation” is just the widely recognized: “favored position of inertial systems.” – Born, 1962."
Yeah, you’re inevitably going to try to pass it off as that, Ball4. However, anybody reading the Wikipedia article can see that it starts off with:
"In physics, the concept of absolute rotation — rotation independent of any external reference — is a topic of debate about relativity, cosmology, and the nature of physical laws."
Hardly likely to be a topic of debate about relativity if it’s just simply saying "inertial is best". Plus:
"…hence the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference."
Ball4 says:
"Move the center of the chalk circle say 1mm off mgr center and the chalk circle gains nonzero translation in a circle and retains its rotation on its own axis wrt the mgr inertial center"
No, Ball4, it’s not MOTL (b), because the MGR is objectively rotating, and the chalk circle is merely a conceptual part of that MGR. The chalk circle is thus objectively not translating in a circle. It must be MOTL (a), instead…
The mgr is not rotating in an accelerated frame with the same rotation rate, DREMT. In that frame mgr is motionless, but has same inertia once the frame acceleration is accounted. The chalk circle is both rotating on its own axis and not rotating on its own axis depending on choice of reference frame.
As your own wiki link states: “absolute rotation relative to these stars”. I observe discussing “absolute rotation relative these stars” is a learning moment for DREMT.
The MGR is objectively rotating, it’s powered to do so.
On Earth, every stationary object, every grain of sand in the Sahara desert, is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not about its own internal axis. That is the objective truth.
The MGR is on Earth. The MGR too is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and when stationary, is not rotating about its own internal axis. When moving, it is rotating about both axes.
The chalk circle is just a part of the MGR. So, the chalk circle is rotating about the MGR’s axis, not about its own internal axis.
All the way down the line, rotation can be treated as absolute.
On Earth, every stationary object, every grain of sand in the Sahara desert, is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and in Earth’s accelerated frame not about its own internal axis. That is the inertial truth.
Just translate each grain of sand to the Earth’s center (like translating the chalk circle to the mgr center) with no change of rotational inertia and find the grain of sand remains rotating about its own internal axis when aligned with Earth’s internal axis.
Translate the stationary mgr to the earth’s center without changing its spin, find stationary mgr rotating about its own internal axis.
All the way down the line, inertial rotation can be treated as “absolute rotation relative these stars” as stated in the wiki article DREMT linked.
Inertially or in the “absolute rotation relative these stars” the chalk circle is rotating about the MGR’s axis, and about its own internal axis. However, in the MGR accelerated frame the chalk circle keeps same face toward the mgr center so is then seen not rotating about chalk circle’s own internal axis.
All motion is relative.
You still don’t seem to understand that rotation about an external axis is a fundamentally different motion to translation in a circle, and what that means.
Scroll down to my 1:53 PM comment.
“The MGR is objectively rotating, its powered to do so.”
DREMT still doesn’t seem to understand when the earthen MGR is objectively rotating in a frame, it’s powered to do so by a stationary motor in that frame. From another accelerated frame, the MGR is viewed stationary and the motor is rotating.
All motion is relative.
"All motion is relative…"
…except rotation, which is absolute. Which is why they call it "absolute rotation", Ball4. If the article agreed with you, the name of the article would be "relative rotation".
The article is in direct disagreement with your stance. Hence "absolute rotation" is "a topic of debate about relativity, cosmology, and the nature of physical laws".
Which is why the article calls it “absolute rotation relative to the stars”. No name change needed. The title is just a shortened version of the article.
The article (and its cited ref. Max Born’s 1962 Dover book) is in perfect agreement with:
All motion is relative.
If the article agreed with you, the name of the article would be "relative rotation".
Article: “absolute rotation relative these stars”
All motion is relative.
All includes rotation.
#2
If the article agreed with you, the name of the article would be "relative rotation".
Ball4,
Did you misspeak?
You wrote “All [motion] includes rotation.”
Newton’s First Law of Motion –
“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.”
I can’t see “rotation”. Did you make that up, for some odd reason?
Key to all your arguments is the measurement of rotation.
There are two ways to measure rotation, external and internal.
External:-
You observe rotation relative to an external reference point.
For the Earth the reference points are the Sun and the stars, giving the solar day and the sidereal day.
For the Moon the reference points are the Sun, the stars and the Earth. This gives a choice of three different rotation rates.The
Which you choose is very much a matter of choice. The non-spinners choose themselves as the reference, ie the Earth. The spinners choose the stars.
Internal:-
These are measures of rotation using effects on the surface of the rotating body. On Earth there are four main ways to measure the planet’s rotation rate.
In 1679 Robert Hooke, following a suggestion by Newton, tried to measure the horizontal displacement of a vertically falling object. He failed, but later workers measured a displacement of about 0.25mm per metre of fall.
The Coriolis force deflects the path of a horizontally moving object to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. The effect is too small to see in the lab, but well known to meteorologists. It shows clearly in the anticlockwise motion of low pressure systems and the clockwise rotation of high pressure systems.
The Foucault pendulum shows the Earth’s rotation by swinging in the same plane while the Earth rotates beneath it. You can measure the apparent rotation of the plane of the pendulum relative to Earth’s surface.
Gyroscopes similarly measure rotation in a single plane. Their apparent daily rotation is because the Earth rotates beneath them.
Though no-one has get repeated these measurements on the Moon the same physical laws apply.
On Earth and on the Moon the four internal measures all measure rotation relative to the stars, which should be the preferred measure. By these measures the Moon spins.
Wrong Ent, but nice try.
In an orbit, spin is determined by what the object is orbiting about. If the object keeps the same side facing the object, it is NOT spinning. The simple ball-on-a-string is a clear demonstration.
To believe otherwise, you have to believe passenger jets fly backward….
> In an orbit, spin
Two mistakes. Puffman.
Revise and resubmit.
Your desperate need to take me out-of-context and misrepresent me, proves what an incompetent childish tr0ll you are, silly willy.
Please continue proving me right.
> Your desperate need
Two more mistakes, Puffman.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Gosh, it only took silly willy 4 minutes to prove me right!
Riddle me this, Puffman –
How many more mistakes did you just make?
"Which you choose is very much a matter of choice. The non-spinners choose themselves as the reference, ie the Earth. The spinners choose the stars."
Wrong, as explained to you dozens of times. I explain it, you ignore me, you disappear, you repeat the same mistakes again. What’s the point?
The four descriptions of motion for the MOTL/MOTR are all wrt an ECI (Earth-Centred Inertial) reference frame. Try to understand that first, then build up from there.
"Which you choose is very much a matter of choice. The non-spinners choose themselves as the reference, ie the Earth. The spinners choose the stars."
Wrong, as explained to you dozens of times. I explain it, you ignore me, you disappear, you repeat the same mistakes again. What’s the point?
The four descriptions of motion for the MOTL/MOTR are all wrt an ECI (Earth-Centred Inertial) reference frame. Try to understand that first, then build up from there.
An ECI has the earth equator ground speeding past the inertial observer’s feet at about 1,037mph, DREMT. Try to understand the implications first.
Irrelevant, since we’re looking at the motion of the MOTL/MOTR. We’re not worried about what’s going on with the Earth, here. Wrt an ECI reference frame (simply an inertial reference frame with the origin centred on the Earth, or central circle in the GIF), the motion of the MOTL/MOTR can be described as follows:
MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
MOTR:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Those apply wrt that reference frame. Rotation about an external axis is a fundamentally different circular motion than is curvilinear translation in a circle. It’s absolutely different. It’s different regardless of your choice of reference frame! Since rotation about an external axis is different to translation in a circle, the four descriptions follow from that fact. Whether or not there is rotation about an internal axis, for the MOTL or the MOTR, depends on whether you go with rotation about an external axis, or translation in a circle, as your "base motion".
“We’re not worried about what’s going on with the Earth, here. Wrt an EarthCI reference frame… “
?? DREMT is not worried then worried about earthen frames. DREMT can’t keep his stories straight.
Whether or not there is rotation about an internal axis, for the MOTL or the MOTR, depends on whether you go with viewing from an accelerated frame or inertial one with DREMT’s link “absolute rotation relative to these stars”.
All motion is relative.
Incorrect, Ball4. Whether or not there is rotation about an internal axis, for the MOTL or the MOTR, depends on whether you go with rotation about an external axis, or translation in a circle, as your "base motion".
Obviously, that choice is taken out of your hands with e.g. the chalk circle on the MGR. There, you’re going with rotation about an external axis, because that is objectively what is occurring. The MGR is rotating, after all. Which means MOTL (a) is the only choice.
For the actual MOTL/MOTR GIF itself, it’s just an animation…the underlying mechanics are not known and cannot be known. That’s why the two choices apply for each.
For the real moon…well, we’re not there yet. Need all the "Spinners" to agree on points 1) – 4) first.
DREMT doesnt yet understand in another frame, the MGR is not rotating, after all. Which means MOTR (b) is the only choice.
All motion is relative.
The best choice for frames is one with “absolute rotation relative to these stars” i.e. an inertial one since:
All motion is relative.
If in another frame the MGR is not rotating, then in that frame the chalk circle is stationary, thus not performing rotation or translation. So MOTR (b) would not be the choice.
All motion is relative…apart from rotation, which is absolute.
Adding details DREMT neglected to understand, in another frame, the MGR is not rotating on its own axis, after all while it is STILL orbiting Earths center.
So non rotating on its own axis orbiting MOTR (b) is the only choice.
All motion is relative.
Ball4…the only way for a MGR on Earth to be "orbiting" Earth’s centre and moving like the MOTR is if it was rotating on its own internal axis, once per "orbit", in the opposite direction to the "orbit". MOTR (a).
Of course that would depend on the viewing frame.
All motion is relative.
You switched everything around to confuse the issue, but I assume you are talking about a MGR on the surface of the Earth. Let’s imagine it is big enough to be viewed from space. So we are observing this massive MGR from above the Earth, in space, looking down. Let’s say we’re above the North Pole, looking down at the Earth. The reference frame is inertial, and we can see the Earth rotating on its own internal axis. The MGR, located a few hundred miles out from the North Pole, is initially stationary. It is moving in a large circle as the Earth rotates. Like an “orbit”. It is not rotating on its own axis (it is stationary), and moves as per the MOTL. In order for it to move like the MOTR, it would need to start rotating on its own axis, once per “orbit”, in the opposite direction to the “orbit”. MOTR (a).
Ball4,
You wrote “All motion is relative.”
How do you know is an object is in motion? Sir Isaac Newton said “An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force”, or something similar. Is an object at rest in motion?
If you are referring to the Moon, it has but one force acting on it – gravity.
Maybe you can find another force making the Moon spin around an internal axis normal to the plane of its orbit, but I doubt it. Or maybe you believe celestial beings spend time spinning the Moon – possibly the same celestial beings who were presumed to be propelling the Moon around its orbit by scientists of that time.
All a bit pointless, isn’t it, but fanatical GHE cultists will do anything to avoid facing the reality that they cannot describe the GHE, nor even bring themselves to say specifically what the GHE is supposed to do!
Truly an effect for all persons – it is anything you want it to be, and does anything you want it to do!
Carry on.
It is strange for non-spinners to bring up the the concept of ‘absolute rotation’ since it does not help their cause.
In this view, the so-called MOTR has no absolute rotation, yet the non-spinners try to claim that it has two hidden cancelling rotations
Spinners, astronomers, physicists and engineers define spin = rotation for planetary bodies, which happens to match their absolute rotation.
Whereas non-spinners have their own personal definition of spin, defining it relative to the rotating frame of reference of an orbiting body, which does not equate Spin with absolute rotation.
All wrong child Nate.
Non-spinners have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You uneducated cultists got NOTHING.
Nah. The standard Astronomy model has been stated here many times. Where have you been?
The Moon’s COM is translating on an elliptical orbit around the Earth. Also, it is rotating at a constant rate around a tilted axis. The rotation in synchronous.
This model fully explains what we see, including libration.
True, Clint. Some of them refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "orbit without spin", as if it’s not just another way of saying "orbital motion", or "orbit". They still don’t get that there’s two separate and independent motions being discussed, "orbit without spin" (or simply "orbital motion", or "orbit"), and "spin". Truly amazing!
“True, Clint. Some of them refuse to even acknowledge the concept of “orbit without spin”, as if its not just another way of saying “orbital motion”, or “orbit”.
Oops, DREMT let the cat out of the bag.
That they want to change the standard definition of ORBIT from what it is in every dictionary:
verb
“to follow a curved path around a planet or star”
and change it to assign a particular rotation rate to the body as it follows the path.
And expect us to believe that is what it means to ORBIT.
Of course this has never made any sense, since bodies can have ANY rotation rate while orbiting, and such a revised definition of orbit has never been produced.
“”orbit without spin”, as if its not just another way of saying “orbital motion”, or “orbit”.”
Sure just like ‘walk without chewing gum’ is just another way of saying ‘walk’!
Pulleez.
To use the word ‘walk’ is not specifying whether the walker is chewing gum or not.
It is an independent motion.
TO use the word ‘orbit’ is not specifying that there is also spin, or rotation or not.
It is an independent motion.
…Clint. Some of them refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "orbit without spin", as if it’s not just another way of saying "orbital motion", or "orbit". They still don’t get that there’s two separate and independent motions being discussed, "orbit without spin" (or simply "orbital motion", or "orbit"), and "spin". Truly amazing!
“Some of them refuse to even acknowledge the concept of ‘orbit without spin’, as if its not just another way of saying “orbital motion”, or “orbit”.”
Yeah we refuse to acknowledge that saying Mars is ‘in orbit’ around the sun is just another way of saying Mars is ‘in orbit without spin’ around the sun.
We are sticklers about saying stoopid wrong things like that.
…they still don’t get that there’s two separate and independent motions being discussed, "orbit without spin" (or simply "orbital motion", or "orbit"), and "spin". Truly amazing!
Yes it is truly amazing that anyone would think that Mars being in ‘orbit’ around the sun means it is in ‘orbit without spin’ around the sun.
And it is truly amazing that anyone would try to change the universally agreed upon definition of the word ‘orbit’ just to suit their personal cranky crusade.
But then again, it is DREMT.
…still don’t get that there’s two separate and independent motions being discussed, "orbit without spin" (or simply "orbital motion", or "orbit"), and "spin". Truly amazing!
And repeating nonsense doesnt turn it into sense.
Not sure what Nate is saying, but there are (and always have been) two separate and independent motions at the heart of the moon debate. One is “spin”. The other, call it what you want…but I tend to go for “orbit without spin”, just for clarity. “Spinners” think it is movement like the MOTR, “Non-Spinners” think it is movement like the MOTL. Anyone still not understanding that, or trying to obfuscate, at this stage, is just being silly.
The two just use different frames and/or locations, DREMT, you ought to understand that by now even being a layman in the physical sciences.
Yep.
Once DREMT has fixated on a notion, no matter how erroneous, we are stuck with it, and we will get increasingly absurd rationalizing.
Anyone still not understanding that, or trying to obfuscate, at this stage, is just being silly.
The fact that he keeps conflating ‘orbit’ with ‘orbit without spin’ is very telling.
Nobody else anywhere uses, or seeks to define the term ‘orbit without spin’, because the two motions are two separate properties.
Just as nobody uses or seeks to define the term ‘walk without juggling’.
Planets have orbits, which are described without any reference to spin or rotation.
Then planets have mass, diameter, color, composition, rotation, etc which can also be described.
There is no one seeking to define the term ‘orbit while red’
Just for anyone reading who might be confused, picture an object that is orbiting, whilst not spinning. You will either be picturing an object moving like the MOTL, or the MOTR. That is your idea of what “orbit without spin” is. Pretty simple, huh?
Picture a basketball flying past you, not spinning.
How do you tell if it is spinning or not?
Is it that you are not seeing all sides of it?
Hmmm.
I’ll assume Nate understands now, if he didn’t before, what the “orbit without spin” concept is. It’s really so straightforward that not even he can obfuscate it.
Perhaps DREMT has a point that he hasnt tried and failed to make 47 times before.
It appears not.
…assume Nate understands now, if he didn’t before, what the “orbit without spin” concept is. It’s really so straightforward that not even he can obfuscate it.
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly, DREMT.
Christos
This may be evidence against your hypothesis that a faster rotating planet is a warmer planet.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simulated_evolution_of_Earth%27s_day_length_over_time.png#mw-jump-to-license
If this simulation is correct the Earth’s day has increased from 5 hours to 24 hours over 4 billion years while, apart from an occasional Snowball Earth, temperature has stayed fairly constant.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Christos
This may be evidence against your hypothesis that a faster rotating planet is a warmer planet.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simulated_evolution_of_Earth%27s_day_length_over_time.png#mw-jump-to-license
If this simulation is correct the Earths day has increased from 5 hours to 24 hours over 4 billion years while, apart from an occasional Snowball Earth, temperature has stayed fairly constant.”
–
For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m^2 the equation calculates
Tmean = 594K, which is 320 oC.
But 4,5 bn years ago sun was much “colder”.
Also Earth was not covered with water then.
For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m^2, but instead of oceanic water cp =1 cal/gr*oC substitute with basalt’s
cp =0,18 cal/gr*oC, and the equation calculates:
Tmean = 285K, which is 13 oC.
–
Was there water ocean on Earth 4,5 bn years ago? No.
So, Equation proves itself right on every possible occasion…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
In the above, instead of:
“For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m^2 the equation calculates
Tmean = 594K, which is 320 oC.”
It should read:
For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m^2 the equation calculates
Tmean = 319K, which is 46 oC.
“But 4,5 bn years ago sun was much colder.
Also Earth was not covered with water then.”
But it’s atmosphere could been an ocean of H20:
“The Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), or lunar cataclysm, is a hypothesized astronomical event thought to have occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years (Ga) ago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
So there was earlier “Heavy Bombardment” but Late Heavy Bombardment would have erased it. So you would not have liquid ocean at certain times between 4.5 and 3.8 because any one big impactors and huge number of smaller one {less 100 km in diameter] would boiled away any liquid surface ocean.
Or in our ice age one rock bigger than 100 km in diameter would cause our ocean to be 100 C.
“But its atmosphere could been an ocean of H20”
–
What I think is that a planet with Eath’s gravity cannot hold a hot H2O atmosphere, because H2O is a very light gas, and H2O will eventually escape to space.
Venus has almost the Earth’s gravity, but Venus is closer to the sun, so, the hotter Venus could not hold the H2O.
The hotter Venus could not hold either N2 or O2, because they are also lighter gasses,than CO2.
The N2 and O2 couldn’t get hold in hot Venus’ atmosphere.
That is why Venus doesn’t have oceans, that is why the entire CO2, which is a much heavier gas, is out in Venus’ atmosphere.
Christos,
You wrote –
“What I think is that a planet with Eaths gravity cannot hold a hot H2O atmosphere, because H2O is a very light gas, and H2O will eventually escape to space.”
Not really. All of the water on Earth was initially in gaseous form, being too hot to form liquid water. It didnt all seem to escape to space.
For any matter to escape into space, it must reach escape velocity to overcome the Earth’s gravity. Just being “light” doesnt necessarily result in a gas escaping the Esrth’s gravitational field, just as being “heavy” doesnt mean that CO2 accumulates at the bottom of the atmosphere (luckily for oxygen breathers).
I’m not sure that your Venusian hypothesis holds water. Only joking, I couldn’t stop my keyboard making such a bad pun.
Best estimate is that the oceans formed about 4.2 billion years ago and the Sun has warned by about 10% per billion years.
Another chance to test your predictions against reality.
Proxy temperatures tell us that for the last 4 billion years (except for the odd snowball Earth or mass extinction) temperatures have varied between 9C and 19C.
Perhaps you could use your formula to calculate temperatures for Earthat different times in the past using this data.
It would be nice to compare your predicted temperature curve with the proxy data.
Time before present, daylength, insolation
4 billion years,10 hours, 816W/m^2
3,16,952
2,21,1088
1,21,1224
0,24,1360
EM,
You wrote –
“except for the odd snowball Earth” – only in your imagination, of course. And that of strange people like Carl Sagan, who apparently overlooked the fact that the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and has cooled to its present temperature.
Anyone who thinks that “snowball Earth” existed in the past is very odd indeed.
The sort of person who could believe in an effect which they can’t describe, or even say what is supposed to do. That would be the mythical greenhouse effect, of course.
You described the GHE as a stack of blankets. Bedouin tents are generally black or dark brown, thick, dense and tightly woven. An excellent blanket, but not a stack. A stack would be cooler, but too heavy to erect. The Bedouins who use these blankets to shield themselves from the fierce hear of the cloudless desert sun apparently believe “the dark fibers attract the sun’s heat to keep the tent cool during the day and warm during the night.”
Is your GHE stack of blankets equally as black as the Bedouin tents? Would your GHE keep a Bedouin as cool, or be even cooler?
Your GHE stack of blankets is fantasy. The black Bedouin blanket exists, and is used for cooling. Maybe your GHE description needs upgrading.
Ent,
“It would be nice to compare your predicted temperature curve with the proxy data.”
Time before present, daylength, insolation
T -average surface temperature (same Albedo a=0,306 and same
cp =1cal/gr*oC)
4 billion years,10 hours, 816W/m^2 (24/10 =2,4 rot/day)^1/4 =1,245
T =267,7K
3,16,952 (24/16 =1,5 rot/day)^1/4 =1,107
T =270K
2,21,1088 (24/21 =1,143 rot/day)^1/4 =1,034
T =274K
1,21,1224 (1,143 rot/day)^1/4 =1,034
T =282K
0,24,1360 (1 rot/day)^1/4 =1
T =288K
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What is a Foucault Pendulum? | Texas A&M Today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiPY1wCO2HA
What is the average of chaos?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1648253
No Willard, that’s an irrelevant link.
Averaging a series of chaotic numbers is about as productive as adding temperatures.
That’s the sort of silly thing fanatical GHE cultists do – add fluxes from sources with different temperatures, and claim that the result is meaningful.
In a more practical sense, deriving the statistics of historical chaotic weather observations could be called averaging chaos. The result is climate, which is chaotic and unpredictable.
Feel free to correct me by providing facts to support your attempt.
No, Mike Flynn, you can’t say anything about links on which you did not click.
Even you can predict seasons.
No Willard, thats an irrelevant link.
Averaging a series of chaotic numbers is about as productive as adding temperatures.
Thats the sort of silly thing fanatical GHE cultists do add fluxes from sources with different temperatures, and claim that the result is meaningful.
In a more practical sense, deriving the statistics of historical chaotic weather observations could be called averaging chaos. The result is climate, which is chaotic and unpredictable.
Feel free to correct me by providing facts to support your attempt.
You wrote “Even you can predict seasons”. What a stupid thing to say. Completely meaningless. Even worse than saying that you can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow! That’s not a prediction dummy, that’s an assumption that a fanatical GHE cultist might make.
Which of course would be completely wrong if a day is considered to be 24 hours long, and the six months of polar night has just set in. Or maybe you now think that a day can be anything between 24 hours and six months in duration, but were keeping your knowledge secret?
What “seasons” were you talking about? You won’t say, because then you would be exposed as an idiot troll, as well as a fanatical GHE cultist.
Yes, Mike Flynn, you have not clocked on the link.
Yes, Mike Flynn, you can predict seasons.
And yes, Mike Flynn, you are being a silly sock puppet.
No Willard, thats an irrelevant link.
Averaging a series of chaotic numbers is about as productive as adding temperatures.
Thats the sort of silly thing fanatical GHE cultists do add fluxes from sources with different temperatures, and claim that the result is meaningful.
In a more practical sense, deriving the statistics of historical chaotic weather observations could be called averaging chaos. The result is climate, which is chaotic and unpredictable.
Feel free to correct me by providing facts to support your attempt.
You wrote “Even you can predict seasons”. What a stupid thing to say. Completely meaningless. Even worse than saying that you can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow! Thats not a prediction dummy, thats an assumption that a fanatical GHE cultist might make.
Which of course would be completely wrong if a day is considered to be 24 hours long, and the six months of polar night has just set in. Or maybe you now think that a day can be anything between 24 hours and six months in duration, but were keeping your knowledge secret?
What “seasons” were you talking about? You wont say, because then you would be exposed as an idiot troll, as well as a fanatical GHE cultist.
Yes, Mike Flynn, you are being a silly sock puppet.
Yes, Mike Flynn, we produce averages of chaotic systems all the time.
Yes, Mike Flynn, it is often quite useful to do so.
Silly sock puppet.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Yes, Mike Flynn, we produce averages of chaotic systems all the time.”
Why do I feel you are about to play one of your “silly semantic games”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“You wrote –
“Yes, Mike Flynn, we produce averages of chaotic systems all the time.””
Yes, I did.
Silly sock puppet!
“Why do I feel you are about to play one of your “silly semantic games”?”
Because it’s your way of avoiding facing the reality that you can’t describe the GHE, nor even sa6 what you think it is supposed to do.
Playing “silly semantic games” of the
“Mike Flynn,
You wrote
“You wrote
“Yes, Mike Flynn, we produce averages of chaotic systems all the time.””
Yes, I did.
Silly sock puppet!” variety just make you look like a fanatical GHE cultist.
The sort who manages to hammer away at the keyboard, whilst keeping one hand firmly down the front of their trousers!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already asked and answered.
For a given set of conditions the average of a deterministic chaotic system is a strange attractor.
“For a given set of conditions . . .” which of course you don’t specify. You say the average is a strange attractor. Does this mean a strange attractor is the average.
You have no clue, have you?
The atmosphere appears to be a deterministic chaotic system.
Go on, what’s its average?
About as silly as you saying that the GHE is a stack of blankets or something even sillier!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
” You say the average is a strange attractor. Does this mean a strange attractor is the average.”
Is this a question, silly sock puppet?
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Is this a question, silly sock puppet?”
Is that a question, Willard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Is that a question, Willard?”
Am I a question?
Do you really dispute that “is this a question, silly sock puppet?” is a question?
Can you be less silly from time to time?
A metaphor for a strange attractor is a ball bearing rolling around inside a wok. The ball is moving in a hard to predict complex path around the centre of the wok. Its position at any time is unpredictable but its average position is in the centre.
Similarly the global average temperature moves around unpredictably, but within a range centred on an average value.
Weird Wee Willy,
Do you really dispute “does this mean . . . ” is a question?
I know you boast about playing “silly semantic games”. Is this one?
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM,
You wrote “A metaphor for a strange attractor is a ball bearing rolling around inside a wok.”
It may be a metaphor, but not for a strange attractor.
You really have no clue about chaos, do you? Otherwise, you wouldn’t write silly things about metaphors, ball bearings and woks. As I said, try and calculate the “average” of the chaotic atmosphere. Which strange attractor do you intend to use?
Maybe you should ask a climate scientist for help. Only joking.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Do you dispute”
Are you suggesting that when you are asking your silly questions you are “disputing”?
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
(pi/4)^1/8 = 0.97025577234908260690263688528339
a reply to RLH as to “What is the average of chaos?”
Wondering Wee Willy,
You tried a gotcha –
“What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Do you really not know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Once again you show that you do not clock on links.
Silly sock puppet!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You tried a gotcha
“What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Do you really not know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike FLynn,
It is the title of the video.
Silly sock puppet!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You tried a gotcha
“What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Do you really not know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The title of the video is “What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Are you really that dumb, or do you need to train?
Silly sock puppet!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You tried a gotcha
“What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Do you really not know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The title of the video is “What is a Foucault Pendulum?”
Are you really that dumb, or do you need to train?
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
question…is the pendulum in the video rotating in real-time or has it been sped up for demonstration purposes? If not, it’s rotating way too fast. The physics geek did not explain how an why it works.
As I see it, the only way it could oscillate is if the planet has a wobble on its axis. If you suspend the pendulum above the North axis, and the Earth is rotating evenly, the pendulum should not rotate at all. There’s no way it should rotate at all in Texas or London.
Anyone care to take a stab at why it does rotate in a small circle at both the North Pole and in Texas? Where it is mounted in Texas should not be affected by the Earth’s rotation. Even suspended directly above the NP, it is attached to the Earth and would only rotate if the Earth wobbled.
If you could hook up a gyro with the same kind of pendulum mounted above it, and the gyro spun evenly in a purely vertical attitude, there would be no reason for the pendulum to rotate. Therefore, the pendulum must be indicating Earth’s wobble on it axis hence is not a proof the Earth is rotating. We can deduce rotation from it, but not prove it.
Before posting, I thought I’d check Google to see what others have to say…naturally the Flat Earth Wiki had something to say…
https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_PendulumThen there’s evidence that the experiments trying to replicate Foucault’s Pendulum simply don’t work.
https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/was-foucaults-pendulum-a-fraud/
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat will cling to just about any conspiracy theory!
There’s just no bottom. He’d even cite the Flat Earth society!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s a list of sites with Foucault pendulums.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
There is one in the Hebb building of the University of British Columbia.
That is on your doorstep in Vancouver.
Why not go and look.
Part of the video was indeed speeded up. A Foucault pendulum at the North Pole would appear to rotate once every 24 hours. The Texas pendulum takes 47 hours because of its 30 degree North latitude.
I would expect the Vancouver pendulum at a higher latitude to rotate about once every 36 hours.
I took some 1st year classes in Hebb. I am trying to imagine where they’d hang a pendulum. A buddy could be found in decent weather sitting on the stairs of Hebb reading. He got 100% in 1st year math and physics.
Hennings was right around the corner. Both had huge lecture halls. The library was nearby and had a pond where the engineers regularly tossed people into it.
> I took some 1st year classes in Hebb. I am trying to imagine where theyd hang a pendulum.
🤦
Tesla demolishes it in a sentence:
“Even the well-known experiment with the Foucault pendulum, altho exhibiting similar phenomena as on our globe, would merely demonstrate a motion of the satellite about some axis.”
Those that really understood the moon issue would not have brought up the Foucault pendulum in the first place…
Graham D. Warner seems to misunderstand that Foucault’s pendulum is the most common example of absolute rotation. But then he only discovered the concept recently.
Astute readers might give him some time for his knowledge to consolidate…
Absolute rotation…about some axis.
And no, I came up with the concept independently a long time ago. I’m quite proud of that. It’s only recently that I discovered “absolute rotation” was something that was already a topic of debate in physics.
Graham D. Warner also seems to misunderstand Nikola’s argument.
One Foucault pendulum at one place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis.
Another Foucault pendulum at another place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis.
Add a few pendulums all around the Earth and at some point one has to wonder – are these all different axes?
Don’t be silly, Willy.
You wrote –
“One Foucault pendulum at one place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis.”
A Foucault pendulum at infinite numbers of places on the Earth shows that a pendulum swings – nothing more.
Maybe you need to revise your statement?
Mike Flynn,
You haven’t watched the video, have you?
Silly sock puppet!
Dont be silly, Willy.
You wrote
“One Foucault pendulum at one place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis.”
A Foucault pendulum at infinite numbers of places on the Earth shows that a pendulum swings nothing more.
Maybe you need to revise your statement?
Or you could appeal to the authority of a “video”!
Good luck with that!
Mike Flynn,
Why do you feel the need to play dumb once more?
Aren’t you the one who brought absolute rotation?
What are you braying about?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Dont be silly, Willy.
You wrote
“One Foucault pendulum at one place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis.”
A Foucault pendulum at infinite numbers of places on the Earth shows that a pendulum swings nothing more.
Maybe you need to revise your statement?
Or you could appeal to the authority of a “video”!
Good luck with that!
Then you demonstrate your disconnection from the real world by writing “Arent you the one who brought absolute rotation?”, which has nothing to do with your silly incorrect statement about Foucault’s pendulum!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Why do you feel the need to play dumb once more?
Arent you the one who brought absolute rotation?
What are you braying about?
Still haven’t watched the video?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Arent you the one who brought absolute rotation?”
Allowing for your limited literacy, the answer is “No”.
The contents of your fantasy are not reality, and implying that they are fact, just makes you look like a rather delusional troll.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Why do you feel the need to play dumb once more?
Arent you the one who brought absolute rotation?
What are you braying about?
Still havent watched the video?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Aren’t you the one who brought absolute rotation?”
Well, no. Why do you ask when you know the answer is no? If you believe otherwise, feel free to quote me, or look like a completely deluded troll.
You might be thinking about someone else, but are confusing your fantasy opponents with each other!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Why do you feel the need to play dumb once more?
Arent you the one who brought absolute rotation?
What are you braying about?
Still havent watched the video?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good old Tesla.
“Even the well-known experiment with the Foucault pendulum, altho exhibiting similar phenomena as on our globe, would merely demonstrate a motion of the satellite about some axis.”
Not just some axis, but specifically the rotational axis of the Moon, which is tilted by 6.7 degrees from the orbital axis.
Not sure why Tesla ignored this rather inconvenient fact.
Child Nate, a Foucault pendulum can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and spinning.
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
And Moon does NOT have a 6.7° rotational axis tilt. You can verify this with a coffee cup and a pencil. Get an adult to explain it to you.
Hey Puffman,
Riddle me this – if “a Foucault pendulum can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and spinning,” how does absolute motion work exactly?
“And Moon does NOT have a 6.7 rotational axis tilt. ”
Declaring established facts wrong again?
Just aint convincing.
” Get an adult to explain it to you.”
This is Clint’s standard excuse for never being able to support or explain any of his claims.
Apparently he is not an adult.
Okay child Nate, let’s see if you are mature enough to stick to your claims.
I don’t waste time with you cult kids because you have no understanding of the basics. But, I’ll make an exception if you will go only one week without commenting here. That’s not asking much. Starting today, go until 1:00pm CT, April 7, and I will show you how easy the 6.7 degrees rotational axis nonsense is to debunk.
Prove you’re not just an uneducated brat and that you really want to learn.
Not interested.
If you had any real desire to make a convincing argument, you would want to show your evidence.
That you need payment to show the ‘evidence’ to support your crank claims is just another indication that is scam.
Exactly, you’re not interested because you’re an uneducated brat that doesn’t want to learn.
That’s why I don’t waste time with cult kids like you.
“that doesnt want to learn.”
The ‘teacher’ always blames his students for not wanting to learn, but in fact the ‘teacher’ is never ever willing to teach!
Tr0lling won’t help you child. Put up or shut up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658344
Hey Puffman, I could teach you why your silly idea of “pure rotation” is silly on two very simple conditions –
You stop commenting for six months.
You do the Pole Dance Experiment.
What do you say?
“Thats why I dont waste time with cult kids like you.”
When a ‘teacher’ refuses to teach, they get fired. You, sir, are fired.
That turns out not to be the case.
A Foucault pendulum would not work on a merry-go-round or a ball-on-a-string because of centripetal forces, which invalidates them as models of lunar motion.
It does measure absolute rotation relative to the inertial reference frame. On Earth that rotation is mostly due to the solar day plus about 0.3% due to orbital motion.
On the Moon the orbital motion and rotation are synchronous due to tidal locking. Over a lunar sidereal day a pendulum at the pole should rotate once.
Interestingly there is a possible experimental test to distinguish between the non-spinner and spinner theories.
The Moons’s orbit is elliptical, so it’s radial velocity varies though it’s rotation rate on its axis remains constant. If the rotation rate of a lunar polar pendulum remains constant it is responding to the Moon’s rotation and the spinners are right. If it varies, it is responding to the Moon’s orbital motion and the non-spinners are right.
Sorry Ent but Moon does NOT spin in synch with its orbit. You don’t understand orbital motion, as indicated by your false belief that passenger jets fly backward.
You have a lot of strange beliefs.
Sorry Puffman but you simply argued by denial. You don’t understand anything about honor, as indicated by your Nth sock puppet.
You should stick to IT menial work.
“It does measure absolute rotation relative to the inertial reference frame. On Earth that rotation is mostly due to the solar day plus about 0.3% due to orbital motion.”
So….you’re a “Non-Spinner”. If you’re including any amount of the rotation as orbital motion, then you’re a “Non-Spinner”. Wonderful!
“On Earth that rotation is mostly due to the solar day plus about 0.3% due to orbital motion.:
How do you figure that?
Entropic Man slipped up and revealed his true colours, so of course he runs away, as usual.
EM,
You wrote –
“Interestingly there is a possible experimental test to distinguish between the non-spinner and spinner theories.”
Are you suggesting that an experiment is required to test Newton’s Laws of Motion, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation?
You refer to some imaginary “theories”. You may be confused about various things, amongst them, what a theory really is.
Maybe you could consider rephrasing your comment?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Are you suggesting that an experiment is required to test Newtons Laws of Motion, and Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation?”
Are you suggesting you have not read Newton?
Cheers.
Nate
In a year the Earth rotates 365 times relative to the Sun due to its rotation plus once due to its orbit around the Sun.
The sidereal component of the pendulum’s rotation relative to the Earth is thus 1/366 or 0.3%.
I don’t think the orbit involves rotation of the Earth at all. So it would not affect the pendulum.
So the pendulum place at the pole would rotate with the sidereal rate (23 h 56 minute period).
But I think we agree that the period is different from the solar day.
“In a year the Earth rotates 365 times relative to the Sun due to its rotation plus once due to its orbit around the Sun.“
Still sounding very “Non-Spinner”-y.
Graham D. Warner sounds a little gaslight-y.
Must be the end of a thread.
Little Willy is bored, and has obviously been missing me.
Graham D. Warner sounds a little more gaslight-y
The trolling continues.
Lunar spin is not what is usually discussed on a blog dealing with atmospheric temperatures. It is merely a hint on what some people understand by ‘science’.
*
What are all these trivial, simplistic, pseudo-scientific explanations a la MOTL/MOTR, ball-on-a-string, MGR, concentric circles and other coins – compared to the work of so many scientists and engineers:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Simply NOTHING.
*
The link above points to a document I compiled during the last years, containing in turn several references to historical and contemporary documents, from 1750 up to 2021 (it is of course only a small subset of what is available).
*
Most amazing is the stûpidity of this blog’s most arrogant ignoramus who, when ‘reading’ a few years ago the title of Lagrange’s work
” Théorie de la libration de la Lune ”
wrote
” Don’t you see, Binny? Lagrange’s work hasn’t anything to do with rotation, it merely talks about libration. ”
*
It was evident to anyone on the blog that Robertson didn’t care to read more than the title in the document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
{ Note the number of references to Moon’s spin in the document (bold emphasis). }
Dummber you die.
*
Most afflicting in this 360 degree denîal is that this denîer gang feels the brazen need to even doubt the technical necessity to take the lunar spin into account for people planning lunar landing and launching maneuvers (with rendez-vous with an orbiting module).
Luckily, none of them has ever obtained the technical skills let alone the scientific education needed to become a person involved in such planning activities. LUCKILY!
*
Nota bene
I just see right now that the source accessed by the link to the Lunar mission document
Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous and Manned Lunar Landing
Houbolt, J. C. (1962)
has been removed in between. Here is what I saved on disk some years ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R_sG1Vdx7xcgb4JrzqEYIvm-tasn_eAd/view
Ooops?!
Wrong link.
” It was evident to anyone on the blog that Robertson didnt care to read more than the title in the document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
”
should contain this link instead:
https://tinyurl.com/Lagrange-1764-intro (d c syndrome)
binny…re Lagrange link…
*** here’s the basic problem with the Lagrange analysis, taken from the PDF…
“If, therefore, the rotation of the Moon is uniform and perfectly equal to its revolution around the Earth, it is necessary to suppose that the primitive rotational speed imparted to this planet is exactly equal to its mean speed of translation around the Earth; and it is clear that this equality must be quite rigorous; otherwise the difference between the meridian angles of the Moon about its axis and the angles traveled at the same time by the counter of the Moon around the Earth would continually increase; from which it follows that this planet then should in the long run successively present its faces to the Earth”.
Repeat…”…it is necessary to suppose that the primitive rotational speed imparted to this planet is exactly equal to its mean speed of translation around the Earth; and it is clear that this equality must be quite rigorous;”
***
In other words, the period of lunar rotation must be ***PRESUMED*** to be exactly the same as the the orbital period. Based on that presumption, Lagrange, Mayer, et al, proceeded to ***BLINDLY*** apply equation to satisfy that conclusion.
Had either took a few minutes to examine the real problem, I am sure they would have arrived at a different conclusion.
Had they done what a simple engineer like me did, or a brilliant engineer like Nicola Tesla, they would surely have seen what we saw, not that I am comparing myself to Tesla.
Here’s the solution once again.
An ellipse has a unique property by which a radial line on an orbiting body can be found. It involves drawing lines from each focal point to the body’s centre, at any point on the ellipse. When the angle formed is bisected, the bisector is a radial line from a tangential surface on the body. Having the radial line, we automatically have a tangential line at 90 degrees.
The radial line gives us the direction in which the near face of he Moon points at any point on the ellipse, and the tangential line gives us the instantaneous direction of motion. One can see immediately that at either end of the major axis, the radial line points directly at Earth. However, at other points of the ellipse, the radial line points slightly away from a direct view line from Earth. The angle between the direct view and the radial line is the view angle.
I have just described longitudinal libration. As the radial line from the near face varies its angle with a straight line from Earth, we can see further around the near edge.
This also explains why the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. A radial line from the near face always points between either focal point, except when the Moon is located at either end of the major axis. There, it points directly along the axis.
What we are seeing here is straight curvilinear translation without rotation. The point is, the Moon does not have to rotate about a local axis to perform the same action. If you opened the ellipse up and made it into a straight line, the Moon’s motion would be rectilinear translation, without rotation.
This is a much better solution because no assumptions have to be made which are highly unlikely.
Tesla used a different physics principle to arrive at the same conclusion. His solution was more elegant and involved kinetic energies.
Bindi found some more links he can’t understand.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Bindi can’t understand the links, and silly willy can’t either,
Puffman joins Graham D. Warner in his gaslighting business.
“The rotational rate of the moon” is loud and clear.
“Puffman joins Graham D. Warner in his gaslighting business.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn joins Graham D. Warner in PSTering Team Science.
A true Christian we got there.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Bindi found some more links he cant understand. ”
And as always, Clint R cannot escape his trivial, polemical discrediting blah blah instead of contradicting factually.
What else can we expect from a man whose technical skills don’t go beyond the ball-on-a-string level?
Bindi, you always forget the fact that you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
That means you’ve got NOTHING.
Get a model that works, before you try to discredit the ball-on-a-string. Otherwise you’ve just another immature, incompetent tr0ll.
Puffman, you still have NO reason why anyone should care about Moon Dragon cranks’ concepts.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Do the Pole Dance Experiment.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindi, you can’t hide behind silly willy’s skirt forever. Come on out and provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Prove that you’re not just another immature incompetent cult tr0ll.
Oh Puffman, Binny is standing on the shoulders of giants who stand on shoulder of giants –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz3mOlUOGoY
You got NOTHING.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 419.0 km/sec
density: 8.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Mar 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 79
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.91×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
4 numbered with 1 going to farside, none are yet, coming from Farside. All 4 will leave nearside in about 3 days.
Might get a spotless day in few days.
get ready for another data point move sideways
Which Sun are you telling about, gbaikie?
2024 03 30 2024.245 47
Not that we should wonder about such a low SSN for SC25!
Look at the much more powerful SC23, in the same year as SC25 since their respective beginning:
2000 09 11 2000.695 37
You still haven’t figured out that for a proper compassion the cycles have to aligned center to center and not to start to start , Stuck on stoopid you are.
What’s the sense of this stoopid ankle-biting, dachshund?
Where is your proof for such a claim?
And above all, dachsund: how could we compare two cycles center to center when one of them didn’t even reach its aforementioned center?
Your permanent ankle-biting, superficial and irrelevant blah blah is unimaginably poor.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Your permanent ankle-biting, superficial and irrelevant blah blah is unimaginably poor.
The only way to accurately compare cycles, one of them not being completed yet, is OF COURSE ‘start to start’, as is done by all people.
E.g. daily records (chart generated on 2024, March 15):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
Dumbass Bindiclown will not figure out his charts are misaligned until he see the back side of the cycle like this , lets hope he lives long enough
Aaaaand the link
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt3PdWPT/cycllepred2.jpg
I still await YOUR two graphs showing, both as daily and as monthly record, the superposition of SC25, SC24 and SC23.
You’ll never succeed because you are simply unable to do the job.
All you are able to do is to discredit, denigrate and insult people contradicting you.
That graph
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt3PdWPT/cycllepred2.jpg
is the best proof for the level of your technical skills: it is equal to zero.
“All you are able to do is to discredit, denigrate and insult people contradicting you.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
The red line is clearly wrong, since it has the next minimum occurring in the middle of the 2030s.
The previous minimum was ~2019-2020. So that suggests the next minima will be 2030-2031.
But the blue dashed line is clearly wrong because it has the peak occurring in 2023, whereas it needs to peak ~ start of 2025.
“Which Sun are you telling about, gbaikie?
2024 03 30 2024.245 47”
Well just what https://www.spaceweather.com/
are saying.
Are saying sunspot number should be 47 rather than
79
??
Anyhow, has anyone summed the average for March-not including the last day, March 31?
It will be around a hundred
Well that about number I thought it was.
Or close to red line, I thought it might cross it.
So, blue line continues down. And it seems very unlikely it will go up next month. Particularly if we happen to get spotless day {or two}.
2024 03 31 2024.247 55
This is only the estimated SSN; the real one you will not know before April 1 or 2.
In any case: March monthly value won’t be much more than 100.
But… I wouldn’t bet how SC25 will finally behave before it reaches month 65 since the SC’s respective begin:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
Look at SC24 and SC23, and you will see why.
Bindidon,
“This is only the estimated SSN; the real one you will not know before April 1 or 2.”
Just like any prediction, you don’t know whether it was right, until it happens – or doesn’t.
Are your predicted future temperatures any different?
Bindiclown predicts he will know the numbers after they are posted , he so smart
Flynnson
An estimate is not a prediction.
You are a tr0ll, and behave as incompetent as any other idot a la Robertson and similar.
Heil the Holy Freedom of Speech!
Binny,
“An estimate is not a prediction”
If it relates to the future, I fail to see any real difference.
Prediction, assumption, estimate, extrapolation, scenario, probability distribution function – the future is unknowable – until it happens.
Unfortunately, even at quantum level, uncertainty is the rule. I’ll say that the uncertainty principle is a foundation of quantum physics. Unsurprisingly, there are highly qualified physicists who refuse to accept quantum physics. Every Nobel Prize winning physicist, except Murray Gell-Mann?
And yet, the uncertainty principle is has never been shown to be wrong. Einstein famously said “God does not play at dice”, but God didn’t seem to take much notice of Einstein in that regard.
Is your “estimate” any better than one I could produce? Has it any utility?
Just like assumptions about future temperatures – curiosities without any real value. Chaos rules!
“Heil the Holy Freedom of Speech!” Indeed.
“Unfortunately, even at quantum level, uncertainty is the rule.”
Unfortunately, ONLY at the quantum level, uncertainty is the rule.
Naturally, science ignorant Swenson is confused about that.
gbaikie
” Are saying sunspot number should be 47 rather than
79
?? ”
It’s not me: it is the worldwide accepted, ultimate authority concerning the Sun Spot Number:
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-SSN
Space Weather is a good blog, but it’s only a blog.
For the very same reason I look at
https://spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
when I want to look at F10.7 flux data.
The same holds also for the MgII index:
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
and for the Oulu neutron count:
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
We all are of course free to choose our sources, aren’t we?
Solar wind
speed: 433.3 km/sec
density: 5.26 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 60
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.91×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
3 numbered spot. 1 appeared near entering nearside. It grew. It’s likely to grow more. And likely to prevent a spotless day. Other two numbered will take more than a day to leave nearside. Nothing coming from farside, yet {but spots can of course appear or grow on nearside
there a lot small/medium coronal holes in mid point of nearside disk.
A lot = 6 to 7
Which I would guess can cause ribbon/snake flares??
binny…read through your list of spinners and most of them are not talking about lunar rotation, but libration. It states that right in the titles. I went into the paper by Meyer but it got impossible to follow the math due to the translator being unable to translate simple equations.
The impression I got from what I read is that Mayer completely missed the obvious. He was obviously affected by Cassini who failed to observe the problem either. Mayer got himself trapped in the geometry and trig of the situation, seemingly believing that the Moon had to rotate once per orbit. Had he stepped back for a moment, and gotten away from his authority figure, he might have ask the simple question as to why the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
I sure would like to have been able to follow the math to see what he was getting at. I am also sure he made egregious errors in his assumptions. He did not seem to grasp that gravity acts as a field and not like a straight line vector quantity. We use vector from COG to COG when there is no torque present but the effect of gravity is actually like a field acting all over a face.
Instead, he goes into a convoluted and theoretical argument about gravitational variability due to different mass shapes, which is a red-herring argument. He was trying to prove the impossible, trying to find a way to apply math to an obvious curvilinear translation without local rotation.
I wish the translator was better but as it stands, I took the better part of an hour trying to decipher two paragraphs containing math, which was not even able to translate simple numbers. I noted a reference to figure 1 but found no such drawing.
This backs up my claim, in a way, that errors have been made in the translation of Newton. The computer translator cannot decipher numbers and math whereas the human translator cannot see the obvious, that the Moon cannot rotate while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
However, for some reason, Mayer was trying to compare lunar motion to a compass face. I don’t think the guy was as clever as you make him out to be, he strikes me as being overly dogmatic, far too analytical in a needless manner, and seriously myopic. Mind you, I have to consider what he faced in his times, and maybe that was the best he had, Then again, Newton faced an immense problem and approached it very analytically to the point he gained immense insight.
As predictable, ignoramus Robertson persists in spreading his arrogant, egotistic nonsense instead of trying to understand what hundreds of people have discovered through hard work – each of them knowing at least 1,000 times more than him.
” binny… read through your list of spinners and most of them are not talking about lunar rotation, but libration. It states that right in the titles. ”
We can stop here already: dûmbâss Robertson is absolutely unable to escape out of his simple-minded views. He endlessly repeats his own failures without any change since years.
*
If he had a working brain, he would immediately understand that ‘Theory of the libration of the Moon’ OF COURSE isn’t in any sense an explanation of what is libration but an explanation of its cause.
He is not even able to read and grasp a 100% English text:
https://tinyurl.com/Lagrange-1764-intro
in which it is perfectly explained that Lagrange’s work has to do with Moon’s spin about its polar axis being the cause for its apparent, optical libration in longitude.
Let alone would he be able to understand the fundamental difference between optical and physical librations.
*
And he is not even able to accurately use Google’s Translator – a task any 10 year old child nowadays would easily succeed in.
*
No need to continue through the usual trash he is repeating above for at least the 10th time.
*
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
“Anyone who credulously believes Robertsons trash 100% deserves it.”
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Lagrange said –
“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”
What are you braying about?
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Lagrange also said –
“The rotational movement of a body is independent of its translational movement; these two movements result from a primitive
and arbitrary impulse, and can therefore be between them in whatever relation we want.”
What are you braying about?
“What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”Theory of the libration of the Moon OF COURSE isnt in any sense an explanation of what is libration but an explanation of its cause”.
***
We know what causes longitudinal libration and it has nothing to do with rotation. It’s a view angle problem due to the Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit. If the Earth’s orbit was purely circular, there would be no libration. In fact, when the Moon is at either end of the major elliptical axis, there is no libration.
I have no idea why Lagrange, Mayer, et al, missed the obvious. It could be due to their purely mathematical approach to the problem based on a belief that the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. A good engineer would question that assumption immediately.
Dremt pointed out the same for latitudinal libration. We can see more of the polar region at times due to the lunar orbital plane being inclined to the ecliptic by some 5 degrees. If the Moon’s orbit was aligned with the ecliptic there would be no latitudinal libration either.
Same trash as always..
” A good engineer would question that assumption immediately. ”
No.
You just gave for the umpteenth time the proof that you aren’t an engineer, let alone a good one.
Not one of my former colleagues were as dumb and inexperienced as you are, Robertson.
You aren’t even able to download any data and make a chart out of it.
*
” It could be due to their purely mathematical approach to the problem… ”
All what Newton did is based on a ‘purely mathematical approach’.
*
My guess: at best 0.0001 % of all engineers on Earth are dumb enough to believe that the Moon can’t rotate exactly once per orbit because it keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
wee willy…”One Foucault pendulum at one place on the Earth proves that the Earth moves around one axis”.
I think all it proves is that the Earth wobbles on its axis.There is no way such a pendulum situated at Vancouver, Canada, where its axis is pointed at a considerable angle to the NP, would indicate the Earth is rotating.
People setting these contraptions up re forced to resort to illegitimate plans to get them rotating, and then they rotate in the wrong direction at times.
It’s like the dumb argument that bathwater runs down a drain CW (or is it CCW) in the Northern Hemisphere due to Coriolis force, which doesn’t even exit as a force. More judicious researchers have noted that it depends more on the bathtub installation than any forces. Sometimes it runs down the opposite way.
> There is no way such a pendulum situated at Vancouver, Canada, where its axis is pointed at a considerable angle to the NP, would indicate the Earth is rotating.
1. Step 1 – Pure Denial.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat is a Flat Earther too!
“1. Step 1 Pure Denial.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
walter, you need to be careful.
Monkeys may feel upset and offended by the comparison. You wouldn’t want that, would you?
Monkey Man will defend Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat wherever he goes, including to the Flat Earth society!
Gordon
The Coriolis force may be a fictional force but it has real effects. My science pupils once got booked on investigating Earth’s rotation. First they looked into 16 sinks, seven showed a tendency to clockwise rotation and nine to anticlockwise rotation. It is too weak to detect in a sink drain, but is visible in weather systems.
We then built a Foucault pendulum in a 3 storey stairwell. It was about 35 ft long with a water barrel as a weight and a piano wire pointer.
At a 1 metre radius it rotated clockwise at 3mm/minute, which corresponded to 10 degrees/hour or one rotation every 36 hours. That’s about right for 54N.
It puts me in the curious position of knowing that you are mistaken by direct experience.
I recommend you try it yourself. Many modern buildings have an atrium, a stairwell, a light well or a sports hall with a high enough ceiling.
ent…you have not explained why the bucket rotates. You mention 54 degrees N. The bucket is pointed perpendicular to the tangential plane at your location aimed at the centre of the Earth. The tangential plane is rotating about Earth’s N-S axis along a line of latitude. Explain how that causes a bucket suspended vertically from the tangential plane to rotate.
As I tried to explain earlier, if you hung that bucket from something so it was suspended directly above the N-S axis, and the Earth was turning without a wobble, there would be no reason for the bucket to rotate. It would rotate only if the axis was wobbling, meaning the suspension platform was wobbling with the bucket and support rope.
What mechanism would cause the bucket to rotate at 54 degrees N if it was suspended vertically and presumably pointed at Earth’s centre?
Let me lay it out with more detail. If you are on the 54 degree latitude, and the surface is perfectly flat, you are standing on a tangential plane. That means a radial line from Earth’s centre will cut through the plane so it is perpendicular to the tangential plane. That’s the direction the bucket will point, along the radial line.
So, the Earth is rotating at a rate of about 800 mph at your latitude. Why should bucket rotate?
Do you realize that buildings are not completely stationary? High rises flex several inches at the top. How do we know your building is not flexing and causing the bucket to adjust its vertical, even by a fraction of an inch?
Many people trying to set up such a pendulum have been unable to get their weight to rotate.
A Foucault pendulum at the N or S pole has its axis of rotation aligned with the Earth’s axis of rotation, so it rotates in 24 h.
This shows that the Earth is rotating beneath it in a period of 24 h.
At the equator, it does not show any rotation, ie a rotation of infinite period, because the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis of rotation.
At in between latitudes, it naturally has a period in between infinite and 24 hours, because there is a VECTOR COMPONENT of the Earth’s axis of rotation that is parallel with the pendulum’s rotation axis.
https://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html
Foucault pendulum experiment at South Pole.
Try this.
https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pendulumdetails.html
I hope your vector calculus is better than mine.
Whoa, even more complicated…
“As I tried to explain earlier, if you hung that bucket from something so it was suspended directly above the N-S axis, and the Earth was turning without a wobble, there would be no reason for the bucket to rotate. ”
And yet it does rotate! Experiment trumps your misunderstood theory.
Tim,
If you redefine “swings like a pendulum does” to “rotates”, then you are correct.
Something like redefining “slow cooling” to mean “getting , as fanatical GHE cultists do.
Are you one of those, perchance?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“If you redefine”
Are you trying to play another of your silly semantic games by any chance?
Cheers.
There used to be a pendulum at the planetarium in Calgary. It did show the earth moving around its axis.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
How to Calculate your Distance from the Pole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U
UAH for March should be slightly lower than Feb. El Niño is still active, but Polar Vortex has moved to South Pole and HTE warming continues to abate.
Guess is about +0.85 °C.
Ok.
Sounds about right. The other datasets have been showing March to have an anomaly close to January.
Following on from my earlier comment about "absolute rotation", I’ll just go back to Tim’s example from earlier:
"Suppose I have two devices. One is an old-time record player with a toy horse mounted on top of a small stick moving in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. The other has a modern x-y plotter moving a small electric motor with a toy horse mounted on top of the shaft. The plotter and motor are programmed to move the horse in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. Both toy horse[s] execute EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION."
I don’t speak for all "Non-Spinners", so I hope the others will agree when I say that from my perspective, the toy horse on the XY plotter is objectively rotating on its own internal axis. The toy horse on the record player, on the other hand, is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis.
The point I wanted to add is that clearly, then, reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. Both toy horses’ rotation about an internal axis, if quantified wrt an inertial reference frame with the origin going through the centre of mass of the horse, would be said to be at a rate of one axial rotation per "orbit". However, one toy horse I agree is rotating on its own internal axis, and one horse I say isn’t. Thus, the issue transcends frames of reference.
All motion is relative. So said Newton.
No, he did not.
You denying the 3 laws?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219819300747#:~:text=As%20Huygens%20had%20done%2C%20Newton,40r.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument
You denying the 3 laws? Or saying they don’t apply?
He’s (correctly) pointing out that Newton argued rotation was absolute. Absolute is the complete opposite of being relative. So, you’re absolutely wrong, RLH.
Newton held that space, time, and motion as absolute, Richard. It took Mach to break away from that Aristotelian viewpoint. But even then acceleration is still absolute.
As viewed from any reference frame, all motion is relative.
…apart from rotation, which is absolute. You just need to pay attention to where the axis of rotation is.
Rotation is not absolute DREMT. The motor spinning your mgr could be stationary or the mgr stationary and the motor spinning depending on choice of reference frame.
All motion is relative.
Rotation is absolute, as explained. I needed to add some important elements, but the job is done now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657614
DREMT’s memory selectively lapses again. The wiki link ref. by Max Born explains the concept of DREMT’s “absolute rotation” is just the widely recognized: “favored position of inertial systems.” Born, 1962, Dover Pub.
I explained what I meant already, and I am happy with that. No need to repeat an argument I already won, that ended with you running away.
“The point I wanted to add is that clearly, then, reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. ”
You were talking about a horse on a record player. Then, weirdly, you arrive at a conclusion about the Moon!
Some people need to learn what a non-sequitur means.
“However, one toy horse I agree is rotating on its own internal axis, and one horse I say isnt.”
The difference between a rotating reference frame and a stationary frame is the fact of rotation of one of them. Nothing to do with the location of the axis.
Why do some people want to focus on the device details while missing the point that identical motion can be produced with different devices?
So, hopefully the deeper thinkers amongst us will have realised the connection to the moon issue. Obviously, if the two horses, though moving in a similar way, can be classified differently as to "internal axis rotation" based on the mechanics behind their movement, then:
a) this issue goes beyond reference frames.
b) for the moon, the mechanics behind the motion are what matters, i.e. if "orbit without spin" is as per the ball on a string, then the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis, regardless of reference frames.
So, once again, the issue comes down to what "orbit without spin", or "orbital motion", really is. Is it best summed up by the ball on a string? If "Spinners" disagree, then they really need to come up with their model for "orbit without spin". It would have to be something moving like the MOTR, for their position to make sense, and it would have to objectively not be spinning. Tricky. No wonder they haven’t come up with anything so far.
“No wonder they havent come up with anything so far.”
Apparently DREMT is new to this debate..
DREMT’s memory is known to be arbitrarily selective in DREMT comments.
False accusation. What is the "Spinners" physical model for "orbit without spin" then, Ball4?
You’ve been told many times. Go back and refresh DREMT’s faulty memory. The internet does not forget unless commanded.
What, the yo-yo with a frictionless axle? I said an example that is not objectively spinning!
You need a physical model, an object that is moving as per the MOTR, with something to represent gravity, and it needs to not be objectively spinning. Off you go, now.
See! DREMT verifies DREMT’s memory lapse. What DREMT asked for was: “What is the “Spinners” physical model for “orbit without spin”.
DREMT can’t even accurately recall for what he just asked.
Ok then, a “physical model, an object that is moving as per the MOTR, with something to represent gravity, and it needs to not be objectively spinning.” has also been given to the same DREMT with faulty memory.
None has ever been provided. Prove me wrong with a link to where it has, or please stop trolling.
I’m not repairing your selective memory DREMT, you need to work at it not me. So PST until it is repaired.
Link, or you lose another one. Fine with me.
Here is an Orbital Shaker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odERDyxD1qU
As expected the mechanical mechanism is inside.
Yet its motion is clearly that of orbiting, without spin.
Hence the name.
FYI, the dictionary or textbook definition of ‘orbit’ is easily looked up. And it has been posted here countless times.
It would simply be dishonest to pretend that such definitions don’t exist, havent been posted and discussed, and can be ignored.
A physical model for the “Spinners” idea of “orbit without spin”, please. So it has to move as per the MOTR, have something to represent gravity, and not be objectively spinning.
A numerical model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks would be great.
…but will never be provided, as is wildly unnecessary. Physical model for the "Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin", please. I now fully grok why Clint R keeps asking for one…and, it’s genius.
It’s not “genius” but it IS humorous to read certain commenters have a selective memory ignoring that a physical model for the “Spinners” idea of “orbit without spin” has been provided multiple times. There is no hope of fixing DREMT’s selective memory.
There is no hope of fixing Ball4’s dishonesty. If a physical model satisfying the criteria I gave has been provided multiple times, then it should be easy for you to link to one of those times…and if you can’t post links for whatever reason, simply say what the physical model is.
There is no hope of fixing DREMT’s selective memory. Not worth the effort. There will just be a DREMT re-lapse.
You won’t say it because you know that whatever it is you come up with, I’ll point out that it’s either not moving like the MOTR, does not have anything to represent gravity, or is objectively spinning.
Take the yo-yo on a frictionless axle.
Moves like the MOTR: check.
Has something to represent gravity: check [the string].
Is not objectively spinning: fail.
It fails the third test because it is objectively spinning. If you added some mechanism that could apply friction to the axle until the yo-yo completely stopped being physically able to spin, then it would be moving like the MOTL. That means when it is physically able to spin, and is moving like the MOTR, it must be spinning.
Then, take an XY-plotter programmed to move a model moon in a circle.
Moves like the MOTR: check
Has something to represent gravity: fail
Is not objectively spinning: check
It fails the second test because gravity is not some giant cosmic hand carefully moving the celestial body around in a big circle.
DREMT selectively remembers a couple comment examples but not all.
Yo-yo: “That means when it is physically able to spin, and is moving like the MOTR, it must be spinning.”
No. Yo-yo is orbiting and oriented just like the MOTR with nothing able to set it spinning on its own axle in the frame since the axle is made frictionless.
The BoS also fails the second XY plotter test because gravity is not some giant string carefully moving the celestial body around in a big circle.
I remembered two basic types of example, Ball4. One that fails because it is objectively spinning, and one that fails because it doesn’t have anything to represent gravity. I don’t need to list every example ever offered since it is bound to fall into one of those two categories.
“No. Yo-yo is orbiting and oriented just like the MOTR with nothing able to set it spinning on its own axle in the frame since the axle is made frictionless.”
Wrong. When physically unable to spin, due to sufficient friction, it would move like the MOTL. Since it is physically able to spin, and is moving like the MOTR, it must then be spinning.
“The BoS also fails the second XY plotter test because gravity is not some giant string carefully moving the celestial body around in a big circle.”
Ball4 shoots himself in the foot by arguing that a string does not better represent gravity. If that were the case, the yo-yo would fail on two counts rather than just one!
Since DREMT writes yo-yo is physically able to spin it must then be spinning from creating its own energy from nothing and angular momentum from nothing. Layman DREMT needs to harness that physics for the free world. Yo-yo actually passes all three DREMT tests.
So according to DREMT both BoS fail (be sure to inform Clint R) and XY plotter fail in DREMT’s dreamland. Let’s see if DREMT’s selective memory can recover to offer up better examples which are currently avoided by DREMT since they are better.
“Yo-yo actually passes all three DREMT tests.”
So now a string does represent gravity, according to Ball4! Excellent. The ball on a string wins, then, since the ball on a string is physically unable to rotate on its own internal axis, thus isn’t rotating on its own internal axis.
Since the ball on a string moves as per the MOTL, we can conclude that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Case closed, unless Ball4 has a better “Spinner” model?
Sure, the BoS string represents gravity according to Clint R but not according to DREMT 3:32 pm since DREMT writes gravity is not some giant cosmic hand carefully moving the celestial body around in a big circle thus similarly gravity is not some giant string carefully moving the BoS icon for a celestial body around in a big circle. Case closed.
Now that DREMT has failed Clint R’s gravity belief in the BoS string & closed the case, I won’t need to wait for DREMT to inform poor Clint R that DREMT has bailed in test 2 on Clint’s viable model of “orbiting without spin” because that’s not going to happen. More astute commenters will understand. The two physics laymen will just keep the blog entertainment flowing.
> Is not objectively spinning: fail.
Graham. D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Ball4 and Little Willy start trolling.
…numerical model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks would be great.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s DREMTs Sammich.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659183
Obviously he didn’t actually want one.
“have something to represent gravity, and not be objectively spinning.”
Let the endless goal post moving begin!
Threads have collapsed! Odd.
…a model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks would be great.
I think the issue’s been settled, Little Willy. No doubt the argument will continue regardless, but there you go. The "Spinners" have no viable physical model of "orbit without spin", as Clint R keeps pointing out…and, he’s right to do so. He’s also right that without that, the "Spinners" have NOTHING.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
“viable physical model of “orbit without spin””
Nah, they can’t even tell us what they want on their sammich, much less WHY do they want it.
They are just grasping at straws.
See what I mean?
…model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks would be great.
Little Willy keeps on proving me right.
…still not numerical model model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks…
His ability to write a coherent sentence starts to fade.
…raham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Really bored and lonely at the moment, huh, Little Willy?
…no numerical model model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy our Moon Dragon cranks yet…
That answers my question in the affirmative.
Graham D. Warner chooses to attempt to (!) irritate, again.
Not in the least.
Re: Model for the Moon’s orbit.
https://youtu.be/j91XTV_p9pc
”
@stephenhunter6507
4 years ago
wow, I learned more in 8 minutes on this topic than in 8 days reading about this in school. Darn public school education.”
“I love how you explained this to me like Im dumb because that sir I am, good science too you”
Sorry Nate, but that’s NOT how orbiting works. Pure orbital motion is pure circular motion where only one side faces the inside of the orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
… as viewed by the ball spinner or from the central object.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s up with your silly idea of a “Pure orbital motion”?
“Pure orbital motion is pure circular motion”
Wrong. It is an elliptical one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
The spinners are still stuck on stoopid. Just the same old nonsense.
That’s because they don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They’ve got NOTHING.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658945
“they dont have a viable model”
The super-loser tactic: just keep pretending that your opponents have never made an argument.
Nate, please stop trolling.
The super-loser tactic: just keep pretending that your opponents have never made an argument.
Swenson has made a career of this.
“The super-loser tactic:”
Nate, please stop trolling.
I will if you will..you go first.
“Thats because they dont have a viable model of orbiting without spin.”
Define what that even means.
I showed this device which exhibits orbital motion without spin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odERDyxD1qU
But DREMT didn’t fancy it.
Sounds like whatever we show, the rules will be adjusted accordingly to reject it.
“Pure orbital motion is pure circular motion ” … except no actual orbits are circular. Your “pure orbital motion” applies to zero moons, zero planets, and zero stars. It is useless.
Your understanding of orbital motion is what Is useless, Folkerts. Until you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’ve got NOTHING.
So keep advertising your incompetence. It doesn’t bother me at all….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658945
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658902
Clint no longer even tries to make any sense…must be the final stages of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Nate, please stop trolling.
And Swenson is his role model.
All these trivial, primitive discussions about the ‘ball-on-a-string’, orbital motion without spin, MOTL/MOTR, MGR blah blah: that’s complete garbage.
*
In 1750, astronomer Tobias Mayer computed, using
data from an own, two-year observation of the Moon
spherical trigonometry
algebra
both the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis, and its rotation period:
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 sixtieths of a second
that is, in decimal days
27.321665 days
to be compared with the most recent results using Lunar Laser Ranging data
27.321661 days
what means that Mayers computation was identical to the LLR results till the FIFTH position after the decimal point.
*
What matters to me as a former engineer is that completely different observation tools and observation data processing methods led to the same result.
¡Basta Ya!
Bindi, did your hero Mayer know what “orbiting without spin” looked like?
Obviously he didn’t have a clue, because he also believed in Moon’s bogus “rotational axis”, which is easily debunked with a simple coffee cup and pencil.
But, I like your new “as a former engineer” nonsense. Did you go thru the same imaginary courses as Gordon?
What crap will you throw against the wall next?
Bindiclown is so dumb he thinks if he posts the luna spin to the highest decimal point he wins the debate
Lagrange revealed that proofs like his and Mayer’s depend on the acceptance of the belief that Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. Unfortunately the belief is wrong and all the math is for naught.
A basic tenet of science is observing a problem and gathering information. Science is not about taking someone else’s opinion (like Cassini’s), then applying math to back up his opinion.
Had Lagrange examined the problem more closely, he would surely have got it that it’s not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. Then again, Lagrange was a mathematician, and they tend to live in a surreal universe of numbers and equations.
Then we have followers like Clint who was fumbling till Dremt and I came along using scientific logic to bail him out.
> Lagrange revealed that proofs like his and Mayers depend on the acceptance of the belief that Moon rotates exactly once per orbit.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat gets his assumptions backassward:
Ut. Supra.
Mayer had no business declaring an axis of rotation based on telescope observations. He was merely projecting onto the lunar motion his belief system.
All Mayer ever saw was one side of the Moon. He saw no rotation. Had he not been so obtuse, and more Scottish, he would surly have gotten it that the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at Earth. He had no right to presume it was rotating on an axis.
We can excuse his obtuseness based on the fact he could not jump on a ship and get to the other side of the planet easily to make further observations.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat gets caught pants down, tries to deflect with another rant.
🤦
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Lagrange revealed that proofs like his and Mayer’s depend on the acceptance of the belief that Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. Unfortunately the belief is wrong and all the math is for naught. ”
*
Unlike Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, Hunter boy and a few other geniuses: Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and hundreds of physicists, astronomers and mathematicians after them didn’t believe anything.
They did nothing else than verifying and proving what Newton understood from Cassini and wrote in Book III of his Principia but was not yet able to proof.
Neither was Newton a spherical trigonometry crack like Mayer, let alone did he manage to describe the rotation of celestial bodies by using a system of differential equations of the second order like did Laplace; even Lagrange had to reduce it to the first order.
*
People like Robertson with his ‘f = ma’ horizon can’t understand this, let alone would Clint R with his laughable ‘ball-on-a-string’ brain disease.
Blah-blah all you want, Bindi. But simple examples like the ball-on-a-string and the pencil-in-a-cup prove your astrologers WRONG.
What’s it like to find out you’ve been taken by a false religion?
binny…”Neither was Newton a spherical trigonometry crack like Mayer, let alone did he manage to describe the rotation of celestial bodies by using a system of differential equations of the second order like did Laplace; even Lagrange had to reduce it to the first order”.
***
Newton was too busy inventing calculus to get deeply into differential equation theory, which are based on his theories. Both Lagrange and Meyer had a couple of hundred years of research.
However, one needs to understand DE theory to understand what is wrong here. When you blindly apply such theory to a problem in a purely mathematical approach you are failing to understand the problem. Lagrange admitted that one must presume the Moon is turning exactly once per orbit in order for the equations to apply. However, neither he nor Mayer tried to prove the Moon is rotating, all they did was apply math blindly based on a theory from Cassini.
A differential equation is the result of applying calculus to an integral motion in order to ascertain the instantaneous rate of change. In some cases, nature can be observed as a differential form (instantaneous motion) and the problem is to find the integral (whole) motion. Neither Lagrange nor Mayer had such instantaneous motion re rotation so they had to fabricate it through assumption.
Had either one of them stood back for a moment, and actually examined the problem, it would surely have become obvious to both that they were dealing with a problem of curvilinear motion, not rotation. Mayer referenced Newton several times but seems to have missed Newton’s point that the Moon moves with a linear motion which is bent into a curvilinear motion gravity.
That is an entirely different problem to which Lagrange’s DEs do not apply.
> Lagrange admitted that one must presume the Moon is turning exactly once per orbit in order for the equations to apply.
False.
Willard, just saying “false”, and hoping that someone will value your unsupported opinion, is just silly, don’t you think?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you read Lagrange’s text?
No?
That’s what I thought.
Cheers.
Willard, just saying “false”,, and hoping that someone will value your unsupported opinion, is just silly, dont you think?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You have not read Lagrange’s text.
What are you braying about?
” Willard, just saying ‘false’, and hoping that someone will value your unsupported opinion, is just silly, don’t you think? ”
*
Sorry, Flynnson: Willard is right. To write ‘false’ is in this case exceptionally sufficient.
Nowhere will you find in Lagrange’s or Laplace’s original French documents any place supporting ignoramus Robertson’s pure inventions.
*
Years ago already I could become convinced that Robertson never has read any text written by Lagrange being longer than a small paragraph – let alone would he ever be able to understand even such a tiny piece of his giant work. He utterly failed in trying.
Robertson never asks – he prefers to invent, distort, misrepresent in order to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
A typical example:
” Perhaps that explains why his graphs fail to mimic those of UAH. ”
He of course lacks the courage to ask Roy Spencer about his meaning.
And didn’t understand what Spencer wrote in 2015:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
especially
” 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 ”
what of course let him to discredit my confirmation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
*
So what, Flynnson!
” Willard, just saying ‘false’, and hoping that someone will value your unsupported opinion, is just silly, dont you think? ”
*
Sorry, Flynnson: neither Lagrange nor Laplace wrote the utter nonsense that Robertson implied – which of course you would never accuse of implying nonsense, would you?
Thus, Willard’s “false” is “just right.”
Robertson <b>never</b> asks; He prefers to deflect, distort, misrepresent in order to better insinuate, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
Like… here:
” Recently, he claimed that UAH no longer uses the satellite AMSU data and has resorted to the use of a formula to determine surface [sic]] temperatures. ”
*
From Roy Spencer’s head post about UAH6.0 – dated 2015, April 28:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
we read:
” 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 ”
what for an engineer was easy to confirm by simply overlaying the two series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
*
Yeah. That’s your good friend Robertson…
Oops?!
Suddenly the text edited before, which disappeared, is back again.
Doppelt gemoppelt, say the Krauts around me :–)
” A differential equation is the result of applying calculus to an integral motion in order to ascertain the instantaneous rate of change. In some cases, nature can be observed as a differential form (instantaneous motion) and the problem is to find the integral (whole) motion. Neither Lagrange nor Mayer had such instantaneous motion re rotation so they had to fabricate it through assumption. ”
*
Says this blog’s dumbest ignoramus who never wrote any differential equation in his entire life.
This Moon “debate” was over months ago. The Spinners have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. They’ve got NOTHING except belief in astrology. They’re thrashing around like fishes thrown up on the beach.
But, they provide valuable insight into how a cult works. Nate is now in full meltdown, spewing anything he can conjure up, in an effort to keep the Moon hoax alive. If the hoax falls, where will the cult be? NASA, at one time, supported the hoax. They’ve removed some YouTube videos, but have not publicly retracted their false claims. Almost all colleges and universities, that have astronomy departments, still support the hoax. When the structure falls, what will happen to those here who have been willing to fall on their swords?
Just one more nail-in-the-coffin for Spinners, supplied by “view factor barry”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Circular_motion_vs_rotation.svg
The cult won’t understand, but the object that both orbits AND spins, crosses its tracks!
Poor barry didn’t realize he shot himself in the foot, again!
“The Spinners have no viable model of ‘orbiting without spin’.”
Wrong. You just do not accept the one we have.
Sorry RLH, but your model has a passenger jet flying backward.
That ain’t “viable”.
Get a responsible adult to explain this to you:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Circular_motion_vs_rotation.svg
No model of a passenger jet flying backward is needed, Clint, though there are some. Passenger jets flying backward is objective reality as seen on you tube and in live demonstrations.
If you’re so proud of your cult, why tr9ll anonymously?
The only question if ‘orbiting without spin’ is MOTL or MOTR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
How many times has this been explained to you, RLH?
As I said you just don’t accept it.
What would Newton say?
He’d say that rotation is absolute. That being the case, we need to look at the mechanics behind the motion. Which is why the "Spinners" need to come up with their physical model of "orbit without spin", or else they eternally lose the debate (hint: they’ve already lost).
“”Spinners” need to come up with their physical model ”
1. Bullshit.
2. No they don’t.
3. There are many. Here’s one. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659183
4.Obviously doesnt matter.
No idea what Nate’s saying, but I doubt he’s been able to follow the discussion. He never used to be one for keeping up with complex arguments.
Richard…I have invited anyone with basic intelligence to extract the images from the gif file for the Moon on the left diagram. You can do it easily using the free viewer, Irfanview. Go to the Options menu and use ‘Extract frames’. Once the frames are extracted you can examine them one at a time to prove that the same side of the Moon always points at the Earth and the opposite side always points away.
The key thing to take away is that tangent lines drawn at either side always move in parallel and that rules out any kind of rotation about the COG, since a tangent line through the COG is also moving in parallel with them.
The fact that someone with your intelligence cannot work this out suggests strongly that you know you are wrong, and like the stubborn Pommie you are, you’d rather deny than accept reality.
Then again, Clint has the same problem even though he seems to be a stubborn Yank.
Gordon doesn’t have enough maturity and self-awareness to realize he sounds just like Norman and the other tr0lls that attempt to slander me.
He can’t see that such nonsense has no effect on me.
Banning you has no effect on you either, Puffman.
This might not mean what you make it mean.
“Banning you has no effect on you either, Puffman.”
Presumably you think that your comment has some meaning to someone. Banging on about some “banning” which you say has no effect on some figment of your imagination, is a bit odd, isn’t it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Puffman has been banned many times.
Just like you, he’s using the Charles Manson Defense.
Why are you playing dumb?
Clint is awfully serious…can’t take a little ribbing.
Puffman has been banned many times.”
And this concerns you because . . . ?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for admitting that Puffman has been banned many times.
Silly sock puppet!
“Which is why the “Spinners” need to come up with their physical model of “orbit without spin””
Newton did that in his Principia. His Newton’s cannonball does just that.
If it is fired with no spin, then it orbits with no spin (no rotation), satisfying his equation for the orbital position of its COM as a function of time, which is of course, the Kepler elliptical orbit.
And here is an accurate simulation of Newton’s cannonball.
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/software/NewtonsCannon.html
…he never used to be one for keeping up with complex arguments.
Again, the TEAM demands a sammich.
Newton long ago, gave them a perfectly tasty sammich.
But they don’t know what they want. Whatever sammich they get, they reject it.
Plainly, they are unruly customers.
No soup for them!
…never used to be one for keeping up with complex arguments.
Is the TEAM really going to pretend they NEVER heard about the horse mounted on frictionless bearings on the Merry Go Round?
The one that moves like the MOTR?
C’mon that was discussed dozens of times.
…used to be one for keeping up with complex arguments.
“Which is why the “Spinners” need to come up with their physical model of “orbit without spin”, or else they eternally lose the debate (hint: theyve already lost).”
Yes, yes they are going to shamelessly pretend that they never heard the Spinners describe the horse on a frictionless bearing on a merry-go-round, which indeed does move like the MOTR.
Yes, yes they are going to shamelessly deny that Newton’s cannonball is a physical model that, when fired without spin, moves like the MOTR.
Nate sure is responding a lot. Has he forgotten that I do not read his comments?
DREMT forgets that my posts are not for him. They are for others to see that DREMT has no sensible answers.
My guess is that he has forgotten.
Is Graham D. Warner bored?
I am being bored, by certain people.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Little Willy is bored, and has obviously been missing me.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] I am being bored, by certain people.
Indeed. Your issue?
Graham D. Warner keeps proving me right!
If you say so, Little Willy.
Passenger jet flying backwards?
Wait, what?
Exactly.
” spewing anything he can conjure up”
Not really, just long established facts that Clint is forced to deny without any science rationale.
He just declares them false.
Like the Moon’s rotation around an axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis, that he is unable to explain as ‘just orbiting’.
Meanwhile, what is his big problem with “crosses its tracks!”
Nobody knows.
“They’re thrashing around like fishes thrown up on the beach.”
Yes, Clint R. They’re really quite desperate.
Nah, the TEAM makes clear that they can only respond with insults, but no science rebuttal.
Really very desperate. Relentlessly so.
Or just make noise.
Extremely desperate.
Passionately determined to try and get the last word, too. Boring to have to mirror their behaviour on that front.
“Passionately determined to try and get the last word, too.”
That can only be a self appraisal for the dude who has tried to have the last word on EVERY thread in this comment section.
Hypocrisy is strong with this one..
…boring to have to mirror their behaviour on that front.
Puffman and Graham D. Warner are still trashing around.
Amazing!
Little Willy chooses to attempt to irritate, again.
Puffman and Graham D. Warner are really quite desperate!
Desperately right about this trivial matter.
“boring to have to mirror their behaviour on that front.”
Yeah, the first few times that may have been some sort of commentary. But now it has just become noise. Has no point. And is just self-serving.
Down-thread we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659935
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Lorentz Transformations in a T I M E G L O B E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Rh0pYtQG5wI
“SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Lorentz Transformations in a T I M E G L O B E”
Willard, please stop trolling.
One of the worst explanations of space-time I have ever seen. The ijit does not even explain what we are moving through? How can you claim time as a dimension, when time has no existence other than in the human mind. Therefore, space-time is a journey through the human mind.
That is what relativity is about. It applies only when we are moving and an object is moving relative to us. Then you need to define a reference frame for both you and the moving object. That’s where Lorentz transforms have a value.
However, Lorentz had a problem, like Einstein, he believed that the length of a second could change if relative speeds were high enough. That’s where Albert got his nonsense.
This is not the same as using a clock to generate time in order to create artificial diagrams that track a particle or mass through a 2- or 3-D projected space. We just need to understand that such a space does not exist in reality with dimensions of x,y and z, and another dimension defined in second. If it did, we’d be able to retrace the path through time. The value of such analyses is the imaginary world created by them. As long as you realize it is imaginary, there is no problem.
In fact, we have put imaginary numbers to good use in EE. We use complex number theory, where one axis in an x-y plane is defined as imaginary. We use the real X-axis to define true power in a circuit and the imaginary axis to define reactive power, like the power consumed by magnetic fields. It’s called imaginary because we cannot use it to do work, as we can real power.
Lorentz and Einstein defined an imaginary time as a real entity and claimed time dilation. Seriously nutty.
> One of the worst explanations of space-time I have ever seen.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat does not even realize that it’s not an explanation of space-time.
🤦
Willard,
And you’re definitely not going out of your way to help, are you?
Go on, try and convince anybody that your link has anything to do with a solar minimum update!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you clocked on think link?
No?
That’s what I thought.
Cheers.
“Have you clocked on think link?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
He starts out talking about Einstein’s relativity theory which makes it space-time. Also, Lorentz introduce the dubious theory of space-timeand that is the subject of his pseudo-science.
BTW…that will be Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat to you.
Oh, Mr. Asshat, the video was about Lorentz transformations.
Hence the title – Lorentz Transformations.
You didn’t tell us you were a relativity crank too!
That was close
https://i.postimg.cc/J4wjRyNk/Clipboard012.jpg
A post from Dremt, revealing a quote from Tim F, the Rube Goldberg of thought experimenters.
How does one make sense of this thought experiment?….
“”Suppose I have two devices. One is an old-time record player with a toy horse mounted on top of a small stick moving in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. The other has a modern x-y plotter moving a small electric motor with a toy horse mounted on top of the shaft. The plotter and motor are programmed to move the horse in a 4 inch radius circle at 16 RPM. Both toy horse[s] execute EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION.””
***
The first seems simple enough, we have a toy horse mounted on a stick apparently glued to a record on a turntable at a 4″ radius with the record turning on a turntable at 16 RPM. Tim has supplied no indication that the horse is free to turn on the glued stick therefore we must presume the horse is akin to a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round.
The second involves an XY plotter to which Tim has somehow hooked up an electric motor????? Why??? The XY plotter ‘can’ act like the phonograph disc provided we give it an equation to follow. It works by directing a pen head to move to certain x-y coordinates while drawing its motion. Why not just attack the toy horse to the pen head?
Tim does not seem to get it that neither motion is similar. If the plotter lacks the resolution it will draw a circle with a very jagged edge. That’s because it is moving from x,y point to x,y point but mut move in straight lines. Even with a high resolution, magnification will reveal the circumference is not perfect but made up of series of triangles.
I don’t understand the point Tim was making.
A Rube Goldberg machne, in many ways an analog of modern climate models…
https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=File:Rube_Goldberg_machine.jpg
It seems to be a closet door opener.
> The second involves an XY plotter to which Tim has somehow hooked up an electric motor????? Why???
🤦
Mr. Asshat’s mind in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OwgyrTnTRM
“Mr. Asshats mind in action:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A lot like climate alarm theory.
‘jagged edge’
Wow, some people will work very hard to focus on irrelevant weeds, look at every wiggle, rivet, bearing, spot of rust, while missing the big picture.
In this case the big picture is that Motion is Motion, a rotation is a rotation, a translation is a translation, regardless of the numerous mechanisms that can produce it.
And BTW, Gordon should know that there are electronic circuits that can smooth out such jagged motion. And that there are analog means of producing x, y motions.
Clouseau to someone smoking a pipe…”Does your dog bite”?
Pipe smoker…”no”.
Clouseau bends to pet dog and gets bitten.
Clouseau…”I thought you said your dog does not bite”?
Pipe smoker…”That is not my dog”.
***
The allegory to my tale of woe is that climate alarmists have leaped to the same illogical conclusions. No…not that it is not their dog, but that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming and climate change.
Gordon Robertson,
I’m curious about your stance on the Coriolis effect; this is not meant to offend you. Hurricanes and cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere rotate counterclockwise, while in the Southern Hemisphere, they rotate clockwise. This is due to the Coriolis effect and is well known to meteorologists.
walter…the Coriolis effect is an illusion based on what is called the Coriolis force, which in turn is called a fictitious force. It is called that because no force exists. It is simply the effect of relative motion.
If you look for a definition of the coriolis effect, you will likely get confusing answers. Here’s one…
“Lets pretend youre standing at the Equator and you want to throw a ball to your friend in the middle of North America. If you throw the ball in a straight line, it will appear to land to the right of your friend because hes moving slower and has not caught up”.
That’s from National Geographic. They seem to think that if two people are on the same line of longitude, that one close to the N. Pole is moving behind a person on the Equator. The only difference between them is that the farther north you go, the slower a person is moving relative to a person on the Equator. However, if a projectile is fired from the Equator toward a person further North, to the person north of the Equator the projectile will appear to move to his right, due to relative motion.
That has nothing to do with a relative difference in speed it has only to do with the fact that the Earth is rotating west to east. It’s an illusion, the projectile move in a straight line, unless it is affected by windage. The appearance of a curved path is only in the mind of the observer.
A better example might be if a person was riding on the roof of a carousel when a ball was thrown straight out from the carousel by someone below. The ball would appear to move along a curved line, even though it was moving along a straight line.
The reason they call it a Coriolis force is that the illusion of the ball curving seems to be caused by a force, but there is no force causing it if there are no cross winds. I am talking about the ball moving through still air.
Where a real effect may appear is with winds. If an air mass is moving with the Equator, it is moving at about 1000 mph. Up my way near the US border the wind would be moving about 800 mph. That represents air mass moving at different speeds relative to each other. They can call that a Coriolis effect if they want but to me its just simple physics. Winds like that produce a natural cyclonic effect that can also cause air to rise in a circular fashion.
Why do cyclones rotate in different directions in the North and South Hemisphere?
A while back I was lucky enough to hitch a ride to the north pole of the Moon.
Then I looked up, and kept looking up for a whole month.
I also set up a camera to record what I saw, but I lost it.
In any case, I can report with certainty that since the moon does not rotate, that the entire Universe is rotating around the Moon.
The Moon must therefore be the Center of the Universe.
The parts that are straight up are just spinning in place, but the stuff all around the edges of my field of view must be really zooming along pretty fast, since they are many light years away and making a full circle around the Moon in only a month.
“The parts that are straight up are just spinning in place, but the stuff all around the edges of my field of view must be really zooming along pretty fast, since they are many light years away and making a full circle around the Moon in only a month…”
…due to the moon’s “orbit without spin” motion, that is how it would appear from the surface of the moon. Nice parody attempt, but your actual argument is probably the biggest straw man you could make. Just shows you haven’t been following the debate.
“due to the moons orbit without spin motion”
Obviously not, since the rotation he observed was around an axis through the North pole–a DIFFERENT axis from the orbital axis.
But deniers like DREMT just keep on pretending such facts can be ignored!
Nate, you refused to learn about that. That means you remain an uneducated cult tr0ll, afraid of reality.
(Offer still stands, one week from today, take it or remain stuck on stoopid.)
Clint you have been fired from your ‘teacher’ job for refusing to actually teach anything, then blaming your ‘students’ for not learning the BS you failed to teach.
That means you remain an uneducated cult tr0ll, afraid of reality.
My offer is still on the table, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658902
For a guy who got banned from Roy’s multiple times, you sure like to throw the T-word around!
The word “tr0ll” is banned, but tr0lls are not banned.
Silly willy is unable to figure that out….
You were actually banned a few times already, Puffman.
Cranks who got uninvited from this website don’t get to decide.
Wrong silly willy. I have not been banned.
You are the biggest tr0ll here, but have not yet been banned.
Just more fear for you to handle….
“Nate, you refused to learn about that.”
‘That’ is the observational fact that the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted 6.7 degrees from its orbital axis, which Clint claims is WRONG.
To recap: Clint refuses to ‘teach’ his students anything about that.
He refuses to refer us to any textbooks that give his ‘lesson’.
He refuses to refer us to any links to supporting material.
Then he declares that his students ‘refuse to learn’ about that which he has failed to ‘teach’.
Thus he has been fired from his self declared ‘teacher’ position.
Good riddance.
That means you remain an uneducated child Nate, afraid of reality.
“The Moon must therefore be the Center of the Universe.”
Must be correct.
The usual trolls support Nicholas with his silly straw man parody comment.
Graham D. Warner will defend his guru to the death, even when he makes brain farts, like the one he did about Foucault’s pendulum.
Little Willy tries to resurrect another zombie argument.
Graham D. Warner never really updates his beliefs when he gets new information.
I do if it contradicts what I thought.
Graham D. Warner returns to Step 1 –
Pure Denial.
If you say so, Little Willy. Not even sure what you’re talking about, as usual, but there’s nothing new about the Foucault pendulum. It has been brought up at least fifty times before.
In the end, Graham D. Warner always returns to gaslighting.
In the end, Little Willy always resorts to false accusations of gaslighting.
There’s nothing new about Foucault’s Pendulums and Graham D. warner just discovered absolute rotation.
Graham D. Warner is the freaking genius Team Cranks need.
Thank you.
Nicholas makes the same mistakes as others. He confuses “orbiting” with “spinning”.
Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits.
Only Moon Dragon cranks confuse orbiting with spinning, Puffman.
The orientation of a celestial body has NOTHING to do with its orbit.
"Spinners" think "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTR, as we’ve had confirmed in the previous discussions (from just about every "Spinner" commenting). The MOTR is oriented a certain way whilst it moves. So…the orientation of a celestial body definitely does have something to do with its orbit.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
” So… the orientation of a celestial body definitely does have something to do with its orbit. ”
*
Of course not, not to mention that it would have to do with its spin.
This orientation is more likely due to how the celestial body has grown in the stellar accretion disk in which it was born, and can potentially be changed later if it is hit by e.g. another celestial body of approximately the same size.
The best example is Uranus, whose extremely unusual polar axis orientation with respect to a fixed point in space could hardly result from its orbit.
Bindidon doesn’t seem to understand his own position. Funny. I wonder what would happen if I asked him how an object that was orbiting, but not spinning, remained oriented whilst it moved? Would he say that it has no orientation!?
They’re so confused.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Never have, never will.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659716
I genuinely think he doesn’t seem to understand the “Spinner” position. Knowing Bindidon, he will probably say he is neither “Spinner” nor “Non-Spinner”.
Graham D. Warner knows Binny’s position between than him. Were he consistent, Binny would no doubt reject the idea that the Moon spins.
Just like he understands absolute rotation better than tradition. Even if he encountered it less than a week ago. He’s that good.
But it just needed a little tweak. Now it’s alright. So right that he and a select few on this Earth are right. Everybody else are wrong or, worse, confused.
Graham D. Warner, who has an unidentified “science diploma,” is Very Big.
“Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR. “Non-Spinners”, like the MOTL. Both have a specific orientation. Thus, orientation is a part of orbit for everyone in this debate. Whether they like it, or not. Whether they accept it, or not. Whether they understand it, or not.
I came up with my ideas for “absolute rotation” years before I was aware it was already a thing. Guess that means I’m a reasonable thinker. Why, are you jealous? You sound jealous.
“Thus, orientation is a part of orbit for everyone in this debate. ”
No.
“Falling without spin” is a thing, but that does not make the two linked. Just like “orbiting without spin” is a thing, without the two being linked.
Orbiting — like falling — is the motion of the center of mass. This is INDEPENDENT of the orientation of the object as it falls or orbits. The orbit is one calculation/measurement/determination. A SEPARATE calculation/measurement/determination is made of the orientation.
An object can orbit but not spin
An object can spin but not orbit.
An object can spin and orbit.
AN object can not spin and not orbit.
“No.”
Yes, Tim. Orientation is a part of orbit for everybody in this debate. If I asked you how an object moved that was orbiting but not spinning, you would say, “like the MOTR”. The MOTR remains oriented a certain way whilst it moves.
Argument over. You lose.
Graham D. Warner has started gaslighting.
What does it mean?
…and yes, Tim, “spin” is separate and independent from the motion “orbit without spin” in both the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” viewpoints.
” I wonder what would happen if I asked him how an object that was orbiting, but not spinning, remained oriented whilst it moved? ”
What the hell does that have to do with what I wrote above?
*
Apparently, the Pseudomod is to such an extent fixated on his own stuff that he can’t have read, let alone did understand what I wrote.
Where did I write that non-spinning objects (like most small asteroids ‘living’ between Mars and Jupiter) lack orientation?
I merely wrote that the spatial orientation of celestial bodies doesn’t have anything to do with their orbit.
This discussion becomes more and more stoopid.
Agreed. The discussion becomes more and more “stoopid”. After the “Spinners” lose, it always goes downhill.
Look, Binny. A cannonball that flies in the air must have a spin, or it has none. Thus an orbit implies a spin value.
Just like the concept of fruit implies color. Do you know of any colorless fruit?
Arguing with Graham D. Warner is that deep.
An orbit does not imply a spin value.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] orientation is a part of orbit for everyone in this debate
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] An orbit does not imply a spin value.
Indeed. Is your problem still that you cannot understand that a change in orientation of an object does not necessarily imply spin?
If Graham D. Warner does not get that a “spin value” can has a whole range of values, then perhaps his “degree” isn’t in computer science.
Argument by insinuation again. No clear point. Yes, I get that “spin value” can have a whole range of values.
” orbiting but not spinning, you would say, like the MOTR. The MOTR remains oriented a certain way whilst it moves.
Argument over. You lose.”
No, because the requirement was to NOT SPIN. Which requires it to have a fixed orientation.
So what exactly is the problem with that?
Note that the MOTL though required to NOT SPIN only has a fixed orientation in a ROTATING frame of reference. Thus it has absolute rotation.
…by insinuation again. No clear point. Yes, I get that “spin value” can have a whole range of values.
“An orbit does not imply a spin value.”
That sums it up. Spin and Orbit are independent parameters. Just as Orbit is independent of the orbiting objects color, mass, diameter, shape, solidity.
The difference between Orbit and all the other properties, including spin, is that Orbit is the only one that needs to be in reference to another body, the planet being orbited.
The orbit is a path, and must be defined in reference to the planet being orbited.
All the other properties are properties of the BODY, defined locally AT the body, and that includes orientation, spin rate and axis.
To suggest that spin rate is part of the Orbit, and thus must be defined in reference to the planet being orbited is clearly unnecessary.
Spin, ie rotation is in reference to the stars, the inertial frame, not the planet.
…insinuation again. No clear point. Yes, I get that “spin value” can have a whole range of values.
Graham D. Warner keeps proving me right.
The “science” in which he has a “degree” isn’t really hard.
Nobody knows what Little Willy is on about.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Instead of falsely accusing me of gaslighting, you could just explain what you are talking about.
Nick…don’t forget that while you are standing on the alleged NP of the Moon, that the Moon is orbiting Earth, which itself is orbiting the Sun. The rest of the universe certainly will appear to be in motion from your vantage point. However, it’s not really moving, it’s us who are moving wrt the universe.
Mind you, that’s a bold statement in itself since much of the universe is in motion as well. As we orbit the Sun, the Sun and the solar system are orbiting a galaxy centre, and for all we know, the galaxy is orbiting something else as it rotates about its hub.
You raise an interesting point, however, which Clint raised before. If you are standing at the alleged NP of the Moon and looking straight ahead, you are moving like a locomotive following a rail line in an oval. One of your sides will always point at Earth and your motion is curvilinear, without rotation.
“However, its not really moving, its us who are moving wrt the universe.”
Good Gordon. We agree.
Specifically the Moon that we are on must be rotating about a line through its NP. That defines its rotational axis, just as it does on Earth.
Oh, and remember, that axis is not aligned with the orbital axis. It is tilted @ 6.7 degrees.
Gordon,
Props for evading one of my not very well concealed trapdoors meant to weed out some fakers, that of the notion of a “pole” on a body with has no rotation and thus no axis upon which to rotate.
I was of course, standing directly at one of the two points on the Lunar surface that are directly in line with the axis of rotation of the Universe around Luna.
Note that everything in the universe is imbedded in a viscous goo of a consistency that forces them all to spin around the moon at one rotation per month (a true month, not any of them ridiculously simply ones that people on Earth invented), but yet allows for the individual stars, galaxies, and everything else outside of the Solar System to have each some amount of motion relative to each other.
Still troubling me is the knotty question of how it is that galaxies millions of light years away are making a full circuit around Luna in only a month…
I confess that all of the things I am forced to disbelieve (speed of light being a speed limit, etc) in order to maintain my Faith, has me at times wondering if perhaps I backed the wrong horse, so to speak.
I already realized though, that just because it is far simpler to adopt worldview that makes everything much easier to understand and account for (sure the Earth is always right there off to my side, but it is spinning peculiarly, and wait until you see how the Sun, the planets, Vens, Mercury, Mars, etc, move across the sky of Luna…), that is no logical reason to believe it is true, only more likely. And I reject the idea that the simplest explanation is the correct one. For now.
Frames of reference are so seductive though…
You’ve thoroughly destroyed that straw man. Well done.
“…moving like a locomotive following a rail line in an oval.”
Keep in mind that the rail itself is pushing against the wheels of the locomotive, forcing it to curve into an oval. Note the shape of the wheels on the locomotive…they are flanged. If they were not, the train would keep going in a straight line and fly off the rails immediately.
What happens if the rails are not fixed to a surface that keeps the rails from moving? All of that ballast serves that important function on an actual railroad track.
Something very different would happen if the locomotive were just hanging in space, like the Moon is.
And for the Moon, if the Earth was suddenly removed from the Solar System, the Moon would keep spinning at the rate of one rotation per month, and now there is no Earth for a fixed reference point.
That is why to do physics, we must keep the separate components of the moons vector separate.
At that time, the sidereal day of the moon is the same as a sidereal month is in the present circumstance.
OK, Nicholas.
Good of you to go to so much trouble to clarify your general demeanor so that no one mistakes you for a serious person.
If you say so, Nicholas.
binny…”The best example is Uranus….”
***
Beavis to Butthead…”Haw…Binny said ‘your anus”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-7u7L4bNCY&ab_channel=ComedyCentral
dremt…”Indeed. Is your problem still that you cannot understand that a change in orientation of an object does not necessarily imply spin?”
***
Good point, so we need to specify the frame of reference in this case. However, it is understood in our discussions that the FoR is the lunar orbital plane. Therefore it is also understood that the orientation of the Moon wrt the Earth is such that it keeps the same face pointed at Earth throughout its orbit on that plane. That reduces orientation to the obvious, that we are talking about a re-orientation of a tangent line that is always instantaneous parallel to the lunar orbital path, and never rotating about the Moon’s COG.
Yes, the frame of reference that the change of orientation of the moon is wrt is one like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
Centred on the Earth, but with the x-y plane as the lunar orbital plane instead. I think that is what you’re saying.
> so we need to specify the frame of reference in this case.
There goes the absolute rotation.
Oups!
Not at all. It’s complicated. I tried to explain it, but you obviously didn’t understand. Never mind.
“Yes, the frame of reference that the change of orientation of the moon is wrt is one like this:”
Sure the Spinners use an inertial frame to measure SPIN.
While the non-spinners specifically measure SPIN wrt a non-inertial ROTATING frame of reference, as Clint admitted.
What is their science rationale for choosing this frame? They cannot say.
Clearly they make their choice of reference frame in order to facilitate their narrative that the Moon does not spin.
Then have the chutzpah to declare that reference frames don’t matter!
If you need a refresher, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657614
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1658757
None of that provides a science rationale for the non-spinner choice to use a rotating reference frame to define SPIN.
Oh well, they have none.
Be sure to read through all the comments in both discussions, not just the linked ones, Little Willy.
Anyone still not understanding, at this stage, is obviously never going to, though.
When one side consistently ignores facts inconvenient to their narrative, then they fail to convince people.
Anyone still not convinced by fact-ignoring arguments by the non-spinners, at this stage, is obviously never going to be.
…anyone still not understanding, at this stage, is obviously never going to, though.
Funny that Graham D. Warner does not repeat his invitation to Nate here…
Funny that he is avoiding it, so far.
Funny how Graham D. Warner balkanizes the exchanges once again.
Made sense to start a brand new thread. Your problem with that?
Graham D. Warner continues to play dumb:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659987
Ah, your problem is you haven’t been paying attention.
Since my worldview is intricately entwined with my opinion of the (lack of a) rotational rate of the celestial body known as Luna, I modestly suggest that I and everyone who shares my opinion be henceforth referred to as Lunatics.
Please.
Merci beaucoup pour cette délicate potion d’humour qui manque ici depuis la naissance de ce blog :–)
From Binny, a confused person who lives in Germany and speaks French.
Besides, I call Binny an ijit out of humour and he thinks I am serious. Whatever Binny has seems to be contagious since Clint seems to have come down with it.
Au contraire, from a confused Scotsman who lives in Canada and speaks French with a Scottish accent. Not as bad as a local professor who had a strong Scottish accent and taught Russian.
Lunatic comes from poor souls who howled at the Moon, or who acted even more oddly under a full moon. That description better fits climate alarmists, all of whom seem to agree that the Moon rotates on a local axis despite proof to the contrary.
A new April has been born, so it’s time to take a look at the last three solar cycles including this past March:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
As I said, I’ll wait for the 65th month of this overlay before admitting that the SC25 will collapse prematurely.
The reasons for my waiting are obvious.
The reasons for your waiting are obvious, you are clueless and cannot predict absolutely anything
Thanks / Merci / Danke, Dachshund!
You can’t imagine how honored I feel to be called “clueless” by one of Earth’s Greatest Solar Cycle Predictors!
You are proud to be a blog’s punching bag, Kinda like a gay pride.
Eboy haz rусский Фетиш?
” The reasons for your waiting are obvious, you are clueless and cannot predict absolutely anything ”
*
” You are proud to be a blogs punching bag, Kinda like a gay pride. ”
Apparently, poster Eben prefers to polemically discredit instead of technically contradicting.
You can admire his outstanding prediction skills when it comes to Sun Spot Number by clicking on the link below:
https://postimg.cc/HcK8tPhT
This link has been bookmarked too, of course. We’ll see how genius Eben feels next year when SC25’s maximum will be reached :–)
*
This mix of incompetence and lack of humour is really afflicting.
So what!
> the Coriolis effect is an illusion based on what is called the Coriolis force, which in turn is called a fictitious force. It is called that because no force exists. It is simply the effect of relative motion.
Take that, absolute rotation!
“Absolute rotation” needed some work, anyway. I fixed it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657614
By chance Graham D. Warner is here to put all the essentialist tradition in check!
If you say so, Little Willy.
Anyway Nikolas’ brain fart is being discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657859
Tesla was correct, as Entropic Man inadvertently confirms.
The pendulum detects a change in orientation, but is that due to “spin” or just rotation about an external axis? In the case of the Earth, it can be both, like Entropic Man let slip. In the case of the moon, it would just be rotation about an external axis.
Is Graham D. Warner slowly discovering why absolute motion isn’t *that* absolute?
It’s as I explained at the link above. Essentially, it depends on the mechanics behind the motion. Two seemingly identical motions, one can involve “spin” and the other one not.
The motion of the MOTL/MOTR is really what is “absolute”…in that they are moving in an enclosed loop, whilst maintaining a certain orientation as they do so. There is really nothing that is moving in this way that can be “relative” to anything else. The difference between the MOTL and the MOTR is also “absolute”.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner needs to return to basics and ask himself –
Did Nikola know about Euler’s theorem?
Little Willy only ever really argues by insinuation. He never makes a clear, concise, explicit point in his own words. He’ll probably break out the links and quotes next.
It’s hard to rely on Graham D. Warner knowing about anything, really.
See what I mean?
dremt…”There is really nothing that is moving in this way that can be relative to anything else”.
***
That’s the point I tried to make to NASA. When I presented my argument they did not disagree, they only replied that their opinion is based on viewing Earth from the stars. When I pointed out that a rotating body’s angular momentum is not dependent on the viewing frame, that it is either rotating or it is not, they went silent.
> Thats the point I tried to make to NASA.
🤦
No, it was not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-716294
Mr. Asshat and Graham D. Warner don’t even agree on that question!
Do we not? Oh.
“whilst maintaining a certain orientation as they do so.”
Only one of these is maintaining a certain orientation in the inertial frame, the MOTR, because it has no absolute rotation.
While the other, MOTL, is maintaining a certain orientation only in a rotating frame of reference.
Yet, some people here keep shamelessly trying to pretend that reference frames don’t matter.
Another good thread for Little Willy to read through if he is still confused:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1654610
“So here, once again, is the explanation as to why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue:
Instead, the resolution will be found by once and for all deciding whether orbit without spin is motion like the moon on the left (MOTL) or moon on the right (MOTR) in the GIF below”
Indeed, deciding whether ‘orbit without spin’ is like the MOTL is to decide to define SPIN as ‘rotation wrt a ROTATING frame of reference rotating with the orbital period.”
Which would seem to contradict the claim that reference frames don’t matter!
Be sure to actually pay attention to what is said, though, Little Willy. Don’t just ignore it, and endlessly repeat yourself. That would be silly.
Graham D. Warner seems to have said something.
But what?
Yes, that’s your problem.
And so Graham D. Warner confirms what I was saying.
Perhaps he could pay attention to what Mighty Tim said over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659942
Tim is wrong. All four points are correct.
Brave Graham D. Warner runs away!
Never. If Tim wants to lose on points 1) – 4), I am right here. I am just keeping the other thread clear for me and Nate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659971
I just said he can debate me here, if he wants. What is wrong with you?
Graham D. Warner tries to exploit the fact that not everybody uses an RSS reader to monitor these silly exchanges.
I do not use an RSS reader, and I am not trying to exploit anything.
Astute readers can see that Graham D. Warner is just being a manipulative prick.
“In the case of the moon, it would just be rotation about an external axis. ”
Nope. If the Moon were rotating around an external axis the pendulum would experience a centripetal force
Entropic Man returns from nowhere to argue against his earlier statement:
"In a year the Earth rotates 365 times relative to the Sun due to its rotation plus once due to its orbit around the Sun. The sidereal component of the pendulum’s rotation relative to the Earth is thus 1/366 or 0.3%."
And out of nowhere Graham D. Warner tries to suggest that imputing 0,3% of an effect on something else than the spin of a celestial body completely stops that celestial body from spinning.
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
I suggested no such thing, you ridiculous buffoon.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
I did not suggest what you claim I did. Not sure how you could even possibly have thought that I did! The goings on inside your brain are a mystery.
Repetition of Step 1 – Pure Denial.
Graham D. Warner only ever really argues by insinuation. He never makes a clear, concise, explicit point in his own words.
The goings on inside your brain are a mystery.
Graham D. Warner is worst than Jon Snow:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories-classical/
Five years on this beat and he still knows NOTHING.
OK, Little Willy.
DREMT
Don’t get precious.
I live in a different time zone, I have work and I have a life.
You are not a priority. I come here as time and circumstances permit, as a hobby activity, not to suit your desire to chat.
Huh? All that just because I said “returns from nowhere”? Calm down.
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
His reaction seemed OTT.
Graham D. Warner has opinions about being OTT.
And rightly so.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER, on 2024-04-04 at 7:50 AM] The silence from Tim is deafening…
Just another way of saying "crickets", Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner just can’t concede anything.
We know that’s not true, for me. For Little Willy, on the other hand…
While Graham D. Warner just conceded that by “parody” he meant “satire,” it does little to move the needle.
Whereas Little Willy truly never does concede anything, even though he’s remarkably wrong on just about everything we’ve discussed.
And so in the end Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Step 2 is near.
OK, Little Willy.
dense wee willy…”> [GR]Lagrange admitted that one must presume the Moon is turning exactly once per orbit in order for the equations to apply.
[DWW]False.
***
In an earlier post, I quoted Lagrange directly and he said his work is based on the presumption that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. He states that in the opening lines of the article posted by Binny.
Of course, Dense Wee Wily stamps that as false without checking the facts. That’s why he is a climate alarmists and an arrogant trohl.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat imagines that he can get away from the very place where he got caught:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659147
He’s just not that good of a reader.
Lagrange…page 3 of 7…
it is necessary to suppose that the primitive rotational speed imparted to this planet is exactly equal to its mean speed of translation around the Earth; and it is clear that this equality must be quite rigorous;
https://tinyurl.com/Lagrange-1764-intro
It would not only have to be rigorous but ridiculously rigorous to the point it is highly unlikely. That’s because the lunar orbit not only varies, the entire lunar plane rotates every 7 or 8 years.
Also, note that Lagrange used the word ‘translation’. How he could call the motion a translation and completely miss the obvious is beyond me. The lunar orbit is curvilinear translation without local rotation. All he had to do was take a buggy ride around Paris in a circle and note that one side of him was always facing the inner city.
Of course, if he thought he was rotating about his own COG while doing that he’d be certifiable.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat forgets a few words:
Op. Cit.
So the “supposition” here has the force of a deduction.
It’s not even the correct passage, but still.
Since I keep seeing his name pop up, over and over and over and over again in my discussions, I’m guessing Nate is absolutely desperate to talk to me. As a one thread only deal, I’m happy to talk to him about points 1) – 4), if he really wants, in this thread. Then I’ll go back to ignoring him. I just sense he’s in dire need of having someone to talk to, in Bill’s absence. So, come on Nate, what’s on your mind? I’ll read anything that you write in response to this comment.
A reminder of points 1) – 4):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
About the only thing correct in “points 1) – 4)” is ” “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motion” “.
In the context of this discussion:
“Orbit” is a motion of the COM of an object (typically due to gravitational forces).
“Spin” is a change in orientation relative to some defined axis.
As a one thread only deal, we can discuss what “elliptical orbit without spin” is. Since the “objective physical reality” is that all orbits are elliptical, any discussion must be able to logically and consistently include elliptical orbits.
Tim STILL has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. So he’s just throwing more crap against the wall.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner missed:
[MIGHTY TIM] As a one thread only deal, we can discuss what elliptical orbit without spin is
Go away, Tim. This is between me and Nate.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Go away Tim.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Tim is wrong. All four points are correct.
Just Nate, Little Willy. Really simple to understand.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659987
Little Willy, I’ve made it perfectly clear that I’ll discuss elliptical orbits, amongst other things, when all "Spinners" agree that points 1) – 4) are correct. The four points can be understood using only circular motion, and in fact it’s probably clearer that way. I think that most "Spinners", once understanding why all four points are true, will most likely not need to discuss anything more after that. They’ll be "Non-Spinners" by then. We’ll see.
And we have made it perfectly clear that we are not going to accept your errors simply to move the conversation forward.
“Spinners” include ALL the engineering and physics and astronomy faculty in the world, so no, I doubt most of them will change their minds reading your posts. You can create your own definitions, but still you can’t explain the ‘objective physical reality’ of elliptical orbits.
I’m not asking you to accept errors for the sake of pushing the argument forward, Tim. Points 1) – 4) are correct, for a start. I’m asking you guys to argue with each other until you are all in agreement that the points are true.
For example, Nate agrees that point 2) is correct. At least, he did back when I used to read his comments. You’re so sure of yourself, Tim, that it doesn’t even seem to phase you that one of your supposed fellow physicists directly disagrees with you on one of the points!
Bindidon, Norman and Swanson have expressed agreement on point 1). You have expressed agreement on point 4) yourself, Tim! Point 3), Bindidon again.
Argue with each other. I don’t see why I have to argue with all of you, when I have been doing that for years, yet you disagree amongst yourselves!
> Nate agrees that point 2) is correct
Based on some vague recollection he has of something Nate might have said more than two years ago.
When was the last time Graham D. Warner responded to Nate?
No, I don’t mean replied right next to his comments, but really responded.
Oh yes, I almost forgot. Little Willy also agrees on point 2)!
At some point Graham D. Warner will rely on gaslighting.
Usually it takes a longer time than that.
Little Willy could just deny that he agrees. Instead, we get this.
Graham D. Warner’s silly bridge is silly, and he’s just trying to evade the inconvenient fact that he’s pretending to know what Nate thinks while he also says not reading him.
Little Willy still won’t deny it!
He also knows full well that a few months ago I linked him to a comment of Nate’s, from back when I was reading his comments, expressing agreement on 2).
Of course, Nate should be here to confirm or deny it, himself. Where is he?
And why, oh why, would anyone ever disagree on point 2), anyway!? It’s all so absurd.
Graham D. Warner tries tries to bait me with…wait – was it not something Tim offered to discuss here?
By now, astute readers will have assumed that Little Willy agrees on 2), due to his continued refusal to deny it. Or, if any have read his previous comments on the matter, they would come to the same conclusion.
” Point 3), Bindidon again. ”
What’s that point, Pseudomod?
Anyway, I’d be grateful if you could stop to mention me wrt this redundant blah blah.
I told years ago already that I lack any interest in this pseudo-discussion.
I’m only interested to discuss about the lunar spin in the context of true work – by ‘accident’, exactly what lunar spin deniers endlessly discredit with absolutely ridiculous arguments.
I know that you have said before that you agree the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis, Bindidon. That is point 1).
Point 3) was that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. By which I am referring to the argument we often see here, that the moon supposedly spins wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not spin wrt a rotating reference frame, and that is supposedly the end of it. I would say you agree that this argument is incorrect, based on what you have said before.
“Points 1) 4) are correct, for a start.”
No, they are not. Appealing to your own authority does not make it so. There are bits of correct ideas in what you say, and bits of errors in the quotes you provide, but on the whole you are wrong.
You can’t even provide a definition of “rotation about an axis”. Rotation about an axis means:
a) changing orientation relative to that axis
b) maintaining a constant distance from the axis.
And a ball on a string does that about an axis through the center of the ball. The MOTL does that about its center.
Furthermore, even *IF* we take your interpretation of Point 1, you are still completely lost with elliptical orbits. The moon is NOT “rotating about a central axis” and the video can’t explain elliptical orbits.
If “we guys” do anything, it will to discuss until we understand the errors in your points more fully and accurately.
Points 1) – 4) are correct, Tim.
If you disagree, you can argue:
1) with Bindidon, Norman and Swanson.
2) with Nate and Little Willy.
3) with Bindidon.
4) with yourself.
OK?
THEOREM. At some point, Graham D. Warner will be gaslighting.
Oh, what the hell. Might as well re-annihilate this:
“You can’t even provide a definition of “rotation about an axis”. Rotation about an axis means: a) changing orientation relative to that axis b) maintaining a constant distance from the axis. And a ball on a string does that about an axis through the center of the ball.”
Let’s go with your definition, for now, since as I said points 1) – 4) can all be understood through purely discussing circular motion, anyway. The ball on a string obviously rotates about an axis located at the hand of the person swinging the ball around, by this definition. By your own definition, this already involves a change in orientation of the ball. Since the ball has changed orientation due to its rotation about the central axis, it need not rotate about an internal axis (an axis through the CoM of the ball) in order to accomplish orientation change. The central axis rotation already achieved that. So, the ball on a string is not rotating about its own internal axis.
Further, the ball on a string physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis, whilst being swung. It is constrained by the string.
Graham D. Warner could support the words he puts in the mouth of various members of Team Science.
He’d rather build himself another motte-and-bailey and wait for Tim to lose interest in chasing him down.
Pseudomod
I ask you one last time to be honest and finally stop mentioning me on your ridiculous 1-4 point list.
I wrote years ago that reference frames – a concept that is either not sufficiently understood or intentionally misunderstood – are not a solid basis for discussions of the lunar rotation among laypeople.
Ball-on-a-String, MOTL/MOTR, MGRs, etc. are from my personal point of view even less suitable because they completely misrepresent the lunar motions.
Please, please, please: keep my pseudonym out of your irrelevant discussions.
Can’t be bothered to dig up all the links. I tried looking for Norman’s original support on point 1) the other day and it was like looking for a needle in a haystack. These discussions are thousands of comments long and there are dozens of articles. I couldn’t remember the precise phrasing he used so search options were limited.
Instead, I’ll go with assuming people will set me straight if they disagree, or if they have changed their minds, since.
Where’s Nate?
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] If you disagree, you can argue: 1) with Bindidon, Norman and Swanson. 2) with Nate and Little Willy. 3) with Bindidon.
4) with yourself.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Cant be bothered to dig up all the links.
Graham D. Warner may be a Machiavellian prick, but he’s our Machiavellian prick.
OK, well here is one I do have handy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
[DREMT] Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.
[NATE] TRUE
That is Nate agreeing on point 2). The others I would have to look up. Which would be virtually impossible to find.
Agreement from Swanson on point 1):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653285
I would dig try to dig up Bindidon’s agreement, which was even more explicitly in accord, but that might encourage another hissy fit from him. Plus, like I say, it would be almost impossible to find, now. I will leave Bindidon out of it, as he obviously hates to be in any way associated with four obviously correct points.
And there it is:
Op. Cit.
And here is why Graham D. Warner keeps talking about “orbit without spin.” He just can’t articulate two independent concepts without putting them together. As if he was German or something.
“Lets go with your definition”
Well, if you go with my definition, then the ball/moon/MGR horse is rotating about its own axis! Game over.
The ball ALSO happens to be rotating about an axis at the center of the string … and about an infinite number of other axes.
No, Tim, I went with your definition, and the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis…because your definition (like any definition) has the ball changing orientation due to the rotation about the external axis. That doesn’t leave any room for the change in orientation to be due to a rotation about an internal axis! I made an argument, you ignored every word, and just declared yourself the winner! Hilarious.
Graham D. Warner does not even recall his usual line in this situation.
In fairness, Pure Denial is much more quicker.
The response from Tim was pure denial, Little Willy. There was no argument associated with it.
1) Put a mark on the outside of the ball.
2) The mark changes orientation, wrt an inertial reference frame, through 360 degrees as the ball swings through one revolution.
3) The definition Tim provided included that rotation involve a change in orientation of the object.
4) The rotation of the ball about a central, external axis already accounts for all 360 degrees of the change in orientation experienced by the ball.
5) There is no change in orientation of the ball left to attribute to rotation of the ball about an axis passing through its CoM.
6) The ball is not rotating about its own internal axis.
[TIM] Well, if you go with my definition, then the ball/moon/MGR horse is rotating about its own axis!
[GRAHAM] Pure denial.
Graham D. Warner is pure genius.
Yes, because it in no way responds to or addresses the argument I made. He just pretends it does not exist.
Denial. =df When Graham D. Warner feels it does not answer HIS argument.
The silence from Tim is deafening…
“1) Put a mark on the outside of the ball.”
Yep DREMT makes clear that orientation is a locally defined property of the body in orbit. And given the notion of absolute rotation, it is either changing (rotating) or not, ie in the inertial frame.
While the ORBIT is the path through space that the body takes around the central body being orbited. IT MUST be defined in reference to the Body being orbited.
Locally defined properties like color, shape, marks, orientation, spin, have no effect on the orbit which is separately specified, and vice-versa.
They are all obviously independent of orbit.
Nate, the ball on a string is in "absolute rotation wrt an inertial reference frame". However, that rotation is about a central, external axis.
” However, that rotation is about a central, external axis.”
Or not. You havent made the case.
For a rigid body that is rotating around its center, it makes sense to describe a piece of that body to be rotating around the same center.
But for and independent body, like a ball in orbit, it makes more sense to define its rotation thru its COM.
You keep trying to force orientation, a local property of the body in orbit, to be somehow PART OF the orbit.
That makes no sense.
You’re very focused on what appears to be your favourite argument of the moment. Try to focus in instead on the fact that we’re talking about a ball on a string. Try to forget about orbiting, for now.
The ball is being swung around a central axis. That is what is mechanically occurring: one single motion. As Little Willy put it: "what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
In the end, Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Holding the string and swirling it: motion one. The string holding the ball and dragging it through the air: motion two. What we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not. To see why, cut the string right under the ball after it has made a few loops.
When will our Moon Dragon cranks stop pretending?
Little Willy is going onto "ignore/automatic PST" on this sub-thread, too.
Graham D. Warner’s silence is deafening.
No response from either Nate or Tim, still.
Moar crickets from Graham D. Warner.
Still crickets from either Nate or Tim.
Does this blog simply disappear some comments?
Many comments I have made are not appearing to be posted.
I am kind of sure at least a few have disappeared after at first showing up.
It is really better if that is not how moderation is done.
It is one big reason there is one blog that more people use than any other.
One thing to disappear or fail to post some things, but it has to be marked as such, like “comment deleted”, or “awaiting moderation”.
I am not going to spend much time in a discussion where comments just disappear.
OK, Nicholas.
Oh, me?! Weird. OK.
respond to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659857
And especially this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659940
The main point there is that Orientation of a body is clearly a local property of the BODY in relation to the inertial frame.
For example it is a local property of the body to have a recognizable feature that can used to determine its ORIENTATION in the inertial frame.
There is simply no reason to reference the body being orbited to determine the BODY’s orientation.
Only the Orbit needs to reference the body being orbited.
Everything else, the Spin, color, diameter, mass, etc don’t need to reference the body being orbited.
Thus to define SPIN, in reference to the orbit, makes absolutely no sense.
There he is! Finally. How have you been, Nate? Long time no speak.
First linked comment was pre-dealt with here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659052
and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659102
In other words, your example was already debunked before you even brought it up. Presumably you can relate it to the frictionless yo-yo.
As regards your other point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655448
> As regards your other point:
This has already been met above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660078
Citing stuff. Now, that’ll be fun.
No, Little Willy. That doesn’t meet the rebuttal I linked to at all. That is simply Nate stating that rotation about an external axis is not what “orbital motion” is. That’s a completely separate discussion.
Graham D. Warner returns to Step One.
Pure Denial.
Time to put Little Willy on “ignore/automatic PST” for the rest of the sub-thread.
There is also this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566720
DREMT makes an up arbitrary criterion
“Is not objectively spinning: fail.”
Why should we care? What is the science rationale behind this new criterion?
None as far as I can see.
“Both sides define “spin” in the same way.”
False. The spinners describe it in the most logical way, as simply the absolute rotation of the body, ie wrt the inertial frame. And it is the rate-of-change in the bodies orientation, which is a local property of the body.
While the non-spinners define it in unnatural way, it is the bodies rotation measured wrt to a rotating reference frame, and in reference to the body being orbited.
This is unnecessary.
What is the science rationale for defining Spin in the is way?
“As with the “Spinners” viewpoint, “spin” is just any motion of the body that is separate from the “orbit without spin” motion. There are two separate motions:
1) “Orbit without spin” (or simply “orbit”, or “orbital motion”).
2) Spin.”
FALSE. Again as previously noted, ‘orbit without spin’ is not equivalent to ‘orbit’ or ‘orbital motion’.
Since saying Mars is ‘in orbit’ around the sun does not imply Mars is ‘without spin’.
Like color, diameter, shape, solidity, SPIN is a property of the body in orbit, the change in orientation of the body wrt the inertial frame. And it is definable without reference to the body being orbited.
Whereas the ORBIT of the body is the path thru space around the body being orbited. It MUST reference the Central body being orbited.
ORBIT is clearly independent of, has nothing to do with, all the properties of the orbiting BODY, color, diameter, spin, orientation, shape, solidity, etc.
So this
“Yes, Tim. Orientation is a part of orbit for everybody in this debate. I asked you how an object moved that was orbiting but not spinning, you would say, ‘like the MOTR’. The MOTR remains oriented a certain way whilst it moves.
Argument over. You lose.”
is NOT logical, given that you could have asked
‘How would an object look that was orbiting but NOT RED? You could say it could look like VENUS, which is WHITE.
So this does not imply that COLOR is a part of ORBIT!
No, neither color nor orientation are not a part of ORBIT, they independent properties of the body in orbit.
"What is the science rationale behind this new criterion?"
Not a "new" criterion, it was actually specified from the start. The rationale for choosing an example that is not objectively spinning is because you are looking to provide a physical model for "orbit without spin".
"False. The spinners describe it in the most logical way, as simply the absolute rotation of the body, ie wrt the inertial frame. And it is the rate-of-change in the bodies orientation, which is a local property of the body.
While the non-spinners define it in unnatural way, it is the bodies rotation measured wrt to a rotating reference frame, and in reference to the body being orbited."
I’ll just deal with this, first, as you’ve written a bit of an essay. Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" are simply treating "spin" as separate from their version of "orbital motion" (or, "orbit without spin" motion). The two motions must be separate. Nobody is "defining" spin as wrt to any reference frame. The consideration of what is "orbital motion" comes first. Then the fact that spin is quantified wrt different reference frames for "Spinners" or "Non-Spinners" follows from the above.
> The rationale for choosing an example that is not objectively spinning is because you are looking to provide a physical model for “orbit without spin
“You” here refers first and foremost and somewhat exclusively to Moon Dragon cranks.
“The two motions must be separate. Nobody is “defining” spin as wrt to any reference frame.”
FALSE. you have specifically defined SPIN as rotation relative to a rotating frame, as Clint admitted. A frame rotating with the line connecting the moon to the earth.
“The consideration of what is “orbital motion” comes first. Then the fact that spin is quantified wrt different reference frames for “Spinners” or “Non-Spinners” follows from the above.”
First, for most humans, was the observation that the Moon keeps the same side pointed to us on Earth.
Just as any ball moving past, if it is spinning, we are seeing all sides of it.
The Moon appears then, according to usual experience, not to be spinning.
After having it explained by astronomers etc, that the Moon is spinning, while also revolving around us at the same average rate, you guys sought a post hoc rationalization to facilitate your original ‘the moon does not spin’ narrative.
Thus it was decided that it must be ORBIT that you need to redefine (differently from any standard or sensible definition), in order to make your original narrative true.
Sorry, you don’t get to make up your own definitions of science terms, just to facilitate your beliefs.
Nate invents a completely false history. I can’t speak for the others, but I personally have always visualised the problem from the same POV as the MOTL/MOTR GIF.
I’ll repeat:
Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" are simply treating "spin" as separate from their version of "orbital motion" (or, "orbit without spin" motion). The two motions must be separate. Nobody is "defining" spin as wrt to any reference frame. The consideration of what is "orbital motion" comes first. Then the fact that spin is quantified wrt different reference frames for "Spinners" or "Non-Spinners" follows from the above.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Meanwhile, Nate has the right of it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659940
Moon Dragon cranks simply attribute to the Moon’s orbit what pertains to its spin. Hence their “orbit without spin” rigmarole.
But I agree that "an orbit does not imply a spin value".
In fact…isn’t that a quote of mine in the first place?
Lol.
Nate also has the right of it when he continues:
Op. Cit.
“Ill repeat”
Of course when you have no sensible answer it is what you do.
Most newcomers to this debate come here with exactly the notion of ‘the moon doest spin’ that I described above.
I doubt very much that most people have given any thought to how an orbit should be defined.
1. The reality is that the way you wish to define orbit, having the body always point the same face to what it orbits, is impractical, vague, and thus useless to science, since orbits are elliptical and no body in an elliptical orbit always keeps the same face to what it orbits.
2.The orbit as observed by Kepler, who couldn’t see planetary spins, and by Newtons solution to the gravity problem for two bodies, simply gives the position of the body as a function of time. And as we all know, the position of a rigid body can only be defined as its COM.
3.Did I mention that science defines orbit as the path that a body’s COM takes thru space?
4. You don’t get to redefine science terms just to win an argument.
Nate wants to move on to his other points before settling the issue we were discussing, which was about reference frames.
"Most newcomers to this debate come here with exactly the notion of ‘the moon doest spin’ that I described above."
Rubbish. What, have you taken a survey or something?
"To suggest that spin rate is part of the Orbit…"
…which nobody is doing…
And so Graham D. Warner tries to return under his bridge.
"The reality is that the way you wish to define orbit…"
Judging from this comment, overall, it seems Nate erroneously believes that I’m trying to redefine the "scientific dictionary" definition of "orbit". In fact, I’m quite happy with the dictionary definition of "orbit" as just being a path that a body follows through space. Both sides can agree that Mars being "in orbit" around the Sun does not mean that Mars is in "orbit without spin" around the Sun. We don’t need to delve too deeply into semantics, since the "Non-Spinners" point on this is absolutely not about semantics.
[N.B: if I wanted to get into semantics, I could point out how "revolution" is a synonym of "rotation", and how various sources suggest that "revolution" is just another word for "rotation about an external axis", and go down that line of argument…but that would be a diversion, for now].
The "Non-Spinners" point on this is instead about what "orbit without spin", or "orbital motion", actually is. Not "how it’s defined", but what the physical motion actually involves, what forces are behind it, and as a result, what it looks like. Some "Spinners" seem to understand this, other "Spinners" almost seem to be saying that "orbital motion" isn’t a motion at all! Yet, ask these "Spinners" how a body that is orbiting, whilst not spinning, remains oriented whilst it moves, and they’ll all say the same thing: like the MOTR. That, then, is a motion!
This is why Clint R keeps asking for the "Spinners" physical model of "orbit without spin"…the "Non-Spinners" have their model, the ball on a string. It has something to represent gravity, is objectively not spinning, and moves as per the MOTL. Time for the other side to offer something viable…
…. which they have already done. DREMT just always selectively forgets some relevant comments.
According to DREMT previously the BoS has nothing to represent gravity, now it does! DREMT can’t keep his stories straight.
The forces of darkness have summoned Ball4 again to appear absolutely out of nowhere, and blatantly lie about what I’ve said.
No lies by me. DREMT previously commented the BoS has nothing to represent gravity. DREMT just conveniently forgets his own comment.
The BoS is objectively not spinning on its own axis as viewed by the BoS swinger since only one face of the ball is seen.
This is no debate.
It is the longest and most pointless and tedious argument ever engaged in, in the entire history of mankind, and which is regarding the definitions of two words that are in fact very clearly defined in the relevant context, by some people who have no idea that the entire disagreement is founded upon their own failure to understand these definitions that everyone else understands and agrees upon.
No, it’s not really got much to do with the definition of words, as I just finished explaining.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
I really must remember that Little Willy is on ignore/automatic PST. Don’t take the bait!
And so our Moon Dragon crank, who just exploited Binny’s pride to reinject his pet topic (not without multiple baits by him, Mr. Asshat, and Puffman), has opinions on baits.
“Nate wants to move on to his other points before settling the issue we were discussing, which was about reference frames.”
Hardly. It was one of the points we were discussing. In fact you bring it up constantly. Defining ‘orbit without spin”.
Plainly you have no answers for these points.
“The “Non-Spinners” point on this is instead about what “orbit without spin”, or “orbital motion”, actually is. Not “how its defined””
OMG. Precisely the same thing.
What it is is how it is how its defined.
The answer to your points is that they show you are mistakenly thinking this is about trying to redefine the word “orbit”. It isn’t.
It’s about what the physical motion “orbit without spin” actually involves, what forces are behind it, and as a result, what it looks like.
> Its about what the physical motion orbit without spin actually involves,
A “motion” in which orbit and spin are independent, Graham D. Warner should not go without saying.
Basically, Nate, all the squawking about semantics is resolved by asking the “Spinner”, how does an object that is orbiting, without spinning, remain oriented whilst it moves? They will answer that it remains oriented like the MOTR, keeping one face always pointing towards a distant star whilst it moves. That is then their concept of “orbital motion”, or “orbit without spin”, which they have to defend.
Saying “but an orbit is just a path” is just a clever excuse, a way to rationalise their belief that the moon spins. Sure, an orbiting body follows a path. That doesn’t mean that it follows that the motion “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR.
“The two motions must be separate. Nobody is “defining” spin as wrt to any reference frame. The consideration of whatis”orbital motion” comes first.
”
“The ‘Non-Spinners’ point on this is instead about what ‘orbit without spin’, or ‘orbital motion’, actually is. Not “how its defined'”
DREMT is starting to sound a lot like Bill Clinton. It’s what got Clinton impeached.
Basically you want to avoid defining things, but still claim you know it ‘is’ when you see it.
For ORBIT this would certainly be a change from your long held and stated view that and ORBIT is defined as a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
That defined an ORBIT as the MOTL.
And thus meant that the MOTR is an ORBIT with additional internal rotation, ie SPIN.
And thus, like it or not, that would define SPIN as ‘rotation wrt a rotating reference frame’ the frame of the ORBITAL ‘rotation’.
But now we see that you prefer to avoid definitions completely.
Because you have realized your prior definitions don’t actually work, in general, eg ORBITs are elliptical in general, and not definable as a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
And so NOW you claim to accept the definition of ORBIT as just a path through space.
But just to be clear, then, that makes ORBIT no longer defined to be the MOTL.
Because the MOTL clearly has an additional feature that makes it more than just the path through space that the body follows. It is following the path through space in a specific way.
Yes?
It is a path through space AND it has the additional feature that the ORIENTATION of the body is turning to follow the orbital path, to always keep the same face to the central planet.
It is following the orbital path like a terrestrial vehicle follows a road, always keeping the ‘front’ pointed forward.
The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion.
And that is how Astronomy describes the Moon’s orbit.
In the end, Nate, Moon Dragin cranks have no numerical model of the motion of the Moon that would satisfy their own desiderata.
And so they keep baiting and baiting, denying, requesting sammiches, and saying stuff.
Simple, really.
"Basically you want to avoid defining things, but still claim you know it ‘is’ when you see it."
False.
"For ORBIT this would certainly be a change from your long held and stated view that and ORBIT is defined as a ‘rotation around an external axis’."
I mentioned in a previous comment on this thread that if I wanted to get into semantics, I could. But, I’m not going to.
"That defined an ORBIT as the MOTL. And thus meant that the MOTR is an ORBIT with additional internal rotation, ie SPIN. And thus, like it or not, that would define SPIN as ‘rotation wrt a rotating reference frame’ the frame of the ORBITAL ‘rotation’."
It doesn’t "define" spin, that way, it’s just that "spin" would be quantified that way. Given that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, which is the primary consideration.
"But now we see that you prefer to avoid definitions completely. Because you have realized your prior definitions don’t actually work, in general, eg ORBITs are elliptical in general, and not definable as a ‘rotation around an external axis’.And so NOW you claim to accept the definition of ORBIT as just a path through space."
Well, that is the definition of "orbit". I deny that I’m changing anything about my arguments.
"But just to be clear, then, that makes ORBIT no longer defined to be the MOTL. Because the MOTL clearly has an additional feature that makes it more than just the path through space that the body follows. It is following the path through space in a specific way. Yes?"
No, because so is the MOTR "following the path through space in a specific way".
"It is a path through space AND it has the additional feature that the ORIENTATION of the body is turning to follow the orbital path, to always keep the same face to the central planet. It is following the orbital path like a terrestrial vehicle follows a road, always keeping the ‘front’ pointed forward."
The MOTR is a path through space AND it has the additional feature that the ORIENTATION of the body is always aligned to some distant, fixed star.
"The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion. And that is how Astronomy describes the Moon’s orbit."
And yet, that conclusion doesn’t follow, as I just explained.
Now if you agree that the MOTL has an additional motion, a ROTATION, beyond what can be defined by ORBIT.
Then the question becomes what that extra rotation is called. SO that is semantics.
The spinners are content to call it SPIN, defining SPIN as absolute rotation, ie rotation wrt the inertial frame, knowing that orientation its rate-of change are properties of the body, and not a property of the orbit.
Non-spinners don’t want to call it SPIN, defining SPIN as rotation wrt to a rotating reference frame, defined by the orbit.
Thus AGAIN, non-spinners are
1. Trying to make the body’s orientation a property of ORBIT.
2. Using a specific reference frame, not the inertial frame to define SPIN
"Now if you agree that the MOTL has an additional motion, a ROTATION, beyond what can be defined by ORBIT."
Obviously I don’t agree that. The MOTR is also moving in a way which is "more than just a path".
“”The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion. And that is how Astronomy describes the Moons orbit.”
And yet, that conclusion doesnt follow, as I just explained.”
Well, you have not explained why this description is incorrect.
What exactly do you disagree with in that description?
“Obviously I dont agree that. The MOTR is also moving in a way which is “more than just a path”.”
It has no additional motion, no additional rotation. It is only translating along the path.
The word ‘additional’ is physically appropriate, because it is an orbital motion that has the MINIMUM kinetic energy, and the minimum angular momentum.
Nate, you went through a line of reasoning to get to your conclusion, and I faulted it at each step. I went through your post line by line. For example, you said:
"But just to be clear, then, that makes ORBIT no longer defined to be the MOTL. Because the MOTL clearly has an additional feature that makes it more than just the path through space that the body follows. It is following the path through space in a specific way. Yes?"
You are trying to argue that the definition of "orbit" being a path through space precludes the MOTL being "orbit without spin" because the MOTL is more than a path through space. To counter this, I pointed out that the "Spinner" concept of "orbit without spin", the MOTR, is also "more than a path through space". Do you understand?
Basically, the definition of "orbit" being a path through space does NOTHING to settle the moon debate.
"It has no additional motion, no additional rotation. It is only translating along the path."
Talk about begging the question…
> I pointed out that the “Spinner” concept of “orbit without spin”
Talk about putting one’s straw in other people’s mouth.
You say you don’t agree with this, but I dont’ see anything in here that you have specifically disagreed with:
“The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion. And that is how Astronomy describes the Moons orbit.”
We both agree that the MOTL has rotation. We both agree that its rotation period matches its orbital period.
“It has no additional motion, no additional rotation. It is only translating along the path.”
Talk about begging the question”
How so?
“The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”
We agree on the premise that it has no absolute rotation. And I assume you agree that it is translating (since it has no rotation).
And I made a physical argument as to why the word ‘additional’ is appropriate.
"We both agree that the MOTL has rotation"
If by "rotation" you mean "spin" (rotation about its own internal axis) then no, we don’t agree.
The movement of the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
The only reason that both options are on the table for the MOTL is that the MOTL GIF is just an animation. We don’t know the mechanics behind the motion, and cannot possibly know. So for the actual GIF itself, it can be described both ways. Guess what? There are two options for the MOTR as well.
"We agree on the premise that it has no absolute rotation"
No, we do not.
“We agree on the premise that it has no absolute rotation”
No, we do not.”
Uhh, well that is strange, given that its orientation is clearly fixed in the inertial frame.
I thought you clearly understood the concept of absolute rotation.
Apparently not.
“”We both agree that the MOTL has rotation”
If by “rotation” you mean “spin” (rotation about its own internal axis) then no, we dont agree.”
I clearly stated ‘rotation’ and ‘absolute rotation’ which you are supposed to get.
I have made my position on "absolute rotation" clear, Nate. If you think it always refers to rotation about an axis going through the CoM of the body itself, then you’re mistaken, at least as far as I’m concerned. I have added the important clarification to the concept of "absolute rotation" that you need to consider which axis the rotation of an object is occurring about. Internal or external.
With that said, and everything I’ve said so far that you keep ignoring…
The movement of the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
The movement of the MOTR can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis (in opposing directions).
b) Curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Looking for common ground here, descriptions that we should be able to agree are true.
So in this
“The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion. And that is how Astronomy describes the Moons orbit.”
there is nothing about the axis of rotation, nor spin.
So what specifically is in there that you do not agree with?
And this about the MOTR:
“It has no additional motion, no additional rotation. It is only translating along the path.”
If I change it to
“It is orbiting, but has no rotation wrt the inertial frame, ie no absolute rotation. Thus in the inertial frame can only be translating.”
and I made a physical argument as to why no additional rotation’ is appropriate, but I will leave that out to see if you agree.
I have given the a) and b) descriptions for the MOTL and MOTR already, Nate. They are the common ground I thought that we used to share. At least, when I left debating you years ago, that was where we were at. You agreed that the a) and b) descriptions applied to the MOTL and the MOTR, as far as I remember.
I don’t know what has happened since, but you seem very confused.
Your old talking point descriptions are two options, so not conclusive.
So you are unable to say which part of the statements above that you disagree with?
I see. Just going to evade answering my question then?
Do you agree that the a) and b) descriptions are correct, Nate?
So let’s simplify the questions:
Do you agree that the MOTL has absolute rotation or not? Why?
Do you agree that the MOTR has zero absolute rotation or not? Why?
Hint there are the physical tests to establish absolute rotation. And they aren’t affected AFAIK by the axis.
“The best way to describe the MOTL then is that it is a body in orbit, AND it has a ROTATION that is synchronous with its ORBITAL motion. And that is how Astronomy describes the Moons orbit.”
Saying that the MOTL “has a ROTATION” is completely meaningless if you don’t specify about which axis you are referring to. Saying that the rotation is synchronous to the orbital motion heavily implies you are referring to an axis going through the CoM of the body…but you are not explicitly saying so! Obviously, if you did, I would correct you that the MOTL can be described as option a). No rotation about an internal axis.
“It is orbiting, but has no rotation wrt the inertial frame, ie no absolute rotation. Thus in the inertial frame can only be translating.”
The MOTR could certainly be described as having rotation wrt the inertial reference frame, rotation about an external axis! Option a), in other words. Once again you are not specifying the axis of rotation.
There. I answered your question. Now, I expect an answer to mine, before answering any further questions.
Here is where I first asked you a question and you began to evade answering.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660348
So you answer my questions then I will be happy to answer yours.
“The MOTR could certainly be described as having rotation wrt the inertial reference frame, rotation about an external axis!”
Ignore my post above this.
Nope, the tests for absolute rotation have nothing to do with the axis!
The MOTL would pass all the tests for absolute rotation because clearly its orientation is changing wrt the stars.
The MOTR would fail all tests for absolute rotation because clearly it is not changing its orientation wrt the stars.
“Do you agree that the MOTL has absolute rotation or not? Why?”
If you are going with “rotation” as your “base motion”, then it has absolute rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. Option a).
“Do you agree that the MOTR has zero absolute rotation or not? Why?”
Again, if you go with “rotation” as your “base motion”, then it has absolute rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis (in opposite directions). Option a).
For both the MOTL and the MOTR, you have the choice of going with “translation in a circle” as your “base motion”, as well. In which case, option b) would be the choice.
It is a choice for the MOTL/MOTR GIF because it is just an animation. The mechanism behind the motion cannot be known, so whether a) or b) is ultimately correct cannot be known.
For an object like the ball on a string, option MOTL a) is ultimately correct. You go with “rotation” as your “base motion” because that is what is physically occurring. The ball is being swung around an external axis on a string.
That summarises my additions to the “absolute rotation” idea.
Now, answer my question.
“Nope, the tests for absolute rotation have nothing to do with the axis!
The MOTL would pass all the tests for absolute rotation because clearly its orientation is changing wrt the stars.
The MOTR would fail all tests for absolute rotation because clearly it is not changing its orientation wrt the stars.”
Hence the concept of “absolute rotation” needed some work. Don’t worry, I improved it. It is, after all, an area of debate in physics. As the article made clear.
Now, do you agree that the a) and b) descriptions are correct?
“If you are going with rotation as your base motion, then it has absolute rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. Option a).”
No. It has absolute rotation. Period. The axis is not involved in any way with that observation. And yet you are CHOOSING, one anyway.
Do you agree that the MOTR has zero absolute rotation or not? Why?
Again, if you go with rotation as your base motion, then it has absolute rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis (in opposite directions). Option a).
No. No. No. Just no.
The only possible way for the MOTR to have a ROTATION is for it to be measured WRT a ROTATING frame of reference. Then of course, that would not be ABSOLUTE rotation.
You must still be confused about the concept of absolute rotation. It is something that is measurable. And if it were measured on the MOTR it would measure 0. We can confirm this with an observer on top of the MOTR looking up and not seeing the stars moving around her.
Instead you are obviously introducing a BELIEF, and going with that over what is objectively MEASURED.
So this is quite contradictory to your emphasis on the OPR.
“For both the MOTL and the MOTR, you have the choice of going with translation in a circle as your base motion, as well. In which case, option b) would be the choice.”
For the MOTL, since it objectively has absolute rotation, then I agree that there are two best options about where to assign the axis of rotation.
If you accept the absolute rotation concept. Then you must conclude the MOTR objectively has no absolute rotation. Then you must conclude, objectively, that its motion can only be TRANSLATION.
Anything else is BELIEF.
Nate, I’m not confused about the concept of absolute rotation…I’ve just made some improvements.
I agree that according to "the tests" of absolute rotation, the CSAItruth video model moon, when replicating movement like the MOTR, would not show up as "rotating". However, you and I both know that to be false (I’m assuming here that you’ve watched the CSAItruth video)!
The CSAItruth video contraption most certainly is rotating the model moon about an external and an internal axis when replicating movement like the MOTR. We know it is. Mechanically, physically, that’s what it’s doing. We can see it! The experiment proves it.
So…the concept of "absolute rotation" needs some tweaks.
Can’t help but notice you still haven’t answered my question…
“Nate, Im not confused about the concept of absolute rotationIve just made some improvements.”
OMG, you have a strange idea of improving.
You gave the MOTR an absolute rotation that is not measurable, and objectively does not exist.
Thus you have ‘improved it’ by ignoring it, and going with your fantasy instead.
So you learned and promoted a new concept, absolute rotation, then finding that it doesnt support your narrative, rejected it.
And I did answer your question here:
“For the MOTL, since it objectively has absolute rotation, then I agree that there are two best options about where to assign the axis of rotation.”
For the MOTR, as I noted, it only has translation.
“The CSAItruth video contraption most certainly is rotating the model moon about an external and an internal axis when replicating movement like the MOTR. We know it is. Mechanically, physically, thats what its doing. We can see it! The experiment proves it.”
Oh?
So when I am running on the treadmill, do I have velocity wrt the rest frame of the Earth?
Mechanically, physically, I am running, that’s what I am doing. We can see it!
Even better. The gerbils in my car’s engine are running on their little gerbil wheels.
We can see the wheels rotating! According to your view, the gerbils must be rotating.
Wow. Nate’s completely lost it.
"You gave the MOTR an absolute rotation that is not measurable, and objectively does not exist."
Absolutely not, Nate. As I said, the MOTR is just an animation. We cannot know the mechanics behind the motion, and so, both option a) and option b) could apply. I’m not saying the MOTR is definitely rotating on its own internal axis. It’s just a GIF.
I said the CSAItruth contraption model moon, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is objectively rotating on its own internal axis. We know that it is, because when they stop the "orbital motion" motor from running, the "moon spin" motor remains engaged. You can see it rotating on its own internal axis.
Takes a lot of belief from you, Nate, to reject the evidence of your own eyes.
If you had the model moon attached to an XY plotter pen, and it was programmed to translate the model moon in a circle, then that would objectively be translating in a circle.
Starting to understand the principle, Nate?
It’s not really "absolute rotation", so much as it’s "absolute motion in an enclosed loop". You could have "translation in a circle" as your "base motion", or "rotation about an external axis" as your "base motion". Depends on the mechanics behind the motion.
And no, you didn’t answer my question. Do you agree that the a) and b) options are correct for the MOTL and the MOTR?
Don’t just say that you disagree for the MOTR. Be specific. Are you saying that you agree with my point 2), or not? You always used to agree. I’m just checking that you still do.
"So you learned and promoted a new concept, absolute rotation, then finding that it doesnt support your narrative, rejected it."
Wrong. What I found is that after years of being derided and abused for trying to explain that the moon issue went beyond reference frames, there had been a debate in physics all along that rotation was absolute, and transcended reference frames! Imagine my surprise, Nate.
Of course, it needed some work…but the basic principle, of a certain type of motion transcending reference frames, which was something I had been desperately trying to explain to a bunch of condescending jerks for years, I was finally vindicated about.
And, naturally, the same bunch of jerks now want to try to piss all over it.
“Of course, it needed some work”
But you, my friend, are not the one to be doing it, since you have decided to outright reject it in favor of your imaginary rotations:
When you say about the MOTR:
“it has absolute rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis (in opposite directions). Option a).”
when objectively the MOTR has zero measurable absolute rotation. Yet here you are claiming it has one anyway.
Why?
Because above all else, you must return to your preconceived beliefs.
No evidence is required to support your beliefs. In fact if evidence gets in the way as it does here, it needs to be rejected, in favor of religious beliefs.
“And, naturally, the same bunch of jerks now want to try to piss all over it.”
Plainly this is projection of what you are doing to the idea of absolute rotation.
Clearly you are simply angry and frustrated because you have no sensible way to pry yourself out of this logical pickle, without contradicting your previous endorsement of ‘absolute rotation’
“Absolutely not, Nate. As I said, the MOTR is just an animation. We cannot know the mechanics behind the motion”
Yes, that is precisely the point. Yet for it we can MEASURE absolute rotation, or rotation wrt the universe.
Thats all we can know about it.
” and so, both option a) and option b) could apply.”
These options are not describing the observable motion at all. They are describing your imaginary motions of imaginary hidden mechanical devices.
Which are obviously irrelevant to measuring the observable motion.
As I noted, if I am running on a treadmill, my translational velocity is 0. You can talk about the underlying mechanisms at work but none of it describes my translational motion.
Nate, all your thoughts on my motivations etc. are wrong.
Before we go any further: do you still agree with me on my point 2) from the points 1) – 4)?
“Before we go any further”
If you continue to be unwilling to follow the plain facts and logic to their unavoidable conclusions…for example that the measurable absolute rotation of the MOTR is ZERO, and consequently its motion must be purely translation….and instead simply returning to your old talking points regardless of what has been discussed, I don’t see this discussion as ‘going’ anywhere.
You’re afraid to throw people like Folkerts under the bus, aren’t you, Nate? That’s why you won’t answer on whether or not you still agree on point 2). Obviously you still do.
I told you that the MOTR is just an animation, and that we can’t know the underlying mechanics of the motion, and you’re still telling me what I’m arguing! No, Nate. The MOTR could be motion a) or b). I am not saying that it’s definitely rotating on its own internal axis. You are the one with the bias.
The CSAItruth contraption, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is objectively rotating the model moon about an internal axis. That you can’t accept that is evidence that your physics training is blinding you to simple truth.
An XY plotter would objectively translate the model moon in a circle. See? There’s no bias to my way of looking at it!
"…you have no sensible way to pry yourself out of this logical pickle, without contradicting your previous endorsement of ‘absolute rotation’"
I’m not in any logical pickle. What I endorse about "absolute rotation" is only the concept that there is "absolute motion in an enclosed loop", which transcends reference frames. The rest, I’m improving on.
On the other hand, you find yourself in a logical pickle. If you also endorse "absolute rotation", as it appears you do, then you have to accept that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames, and thus my point 3) is correct.
“If you also endorse “absolute rotation”, as it appears you do, then you have to accept that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames, and thus my point 3) is correct.”
More failed logic.
You very clearly want to believe that the MOTR, which has no measurable, detectable rotation, has rotation anyway.
And, of course, it does have rotation when viewed by a person on the earth rotating to keep looking at the moon.
For that person, looking up at the moon will see all sides of it, and will conclude, as you do, that it must be rotating.
But in reality it has rotation ONLY wrt a rotating reference frame.
This is plainly evidence that, whether you acknowledge it or not, you detect and measure rotation from a rotating reference frame!
It is the discussion of absolute rotation that made this even more abundantly clear.
"You very clearly want to believe that the MOTR, which has no measurable, detectable rotation, has rotation anyway."
Once again, the MOTR is just an animation. Since we don’t know what the underlying mechanics are, behind the motion, it could be moving as per a), or b). That is as far as kinematics will take us.
"But in reality it has rotation ONLY wrt a rotating reference frame. This is plainly evidence that, whether you acknowledge it or not, you detect and measure rotation from a rotating reference frame!"
If you are going with rotation about an external axis as your "base motion", then of course the internal axis rotation will be quantified wrt a rotating reference frame! That’s a consequence of going with rotation about an external axis as your "base motion"! For an object like the CSAItruth model moon, you don’t have a choice. Rotation about an external axis is, objectively, your "base motion".
That "moon spin" motor is using up a measurable amount of energy to rotate the model moon about its own internal axis. That’s undeniable, Nate. When it replicates movement like the MOTR, the CSAItruth equipment is, objectively, rotating the model moon about an internal axis. That you’re in denial of that fact is what is remarkable, here.
And, that fact transcends reference frames. Point 3) remains correct.
“Once again, the MOTR is just an animation. Since we dont know what the underlying mechanics are, behind the motion, it could be moving as per a), or b). That is as far as kinematics will take us.”
Which are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the MOTR has rotation or not.
Whereas whether it has rotation (absolute wrt the universe) or not can be objectively determined by measurement. And given the depiction of it in the cartoon, it is objectively NOT rotating, ie its orientation is FIXED wrt the universe.
But of course you will keep going with denial of the plainly obvious facts. Why?
“If you are going with rotation about an external axis as your “base motion”, then of course the internal axis rotation will be quantified wrt a rotating reference frame! Thats a consequence of going with rotation about an external axis as your “base motion”!”
I don’t know what ‘base motion’ means. That is a new one.
Seems to be just another made up word that means using a rotating reference frame.
“external axis as your base motion, then of course the internal axis rotation”
Again, you keep returning to your talking points which are about AXIS of rotation, while ignoring the fact that without any measurable rotation, there is no axis to worry about.
But sure, if one is using a rotating reference frame to look up at a moon moving like the MOTR, then one may describe it as rotation around the earth center.
"Whereas whether it has rotation (absolute wrt the universe) or not can be objectively determined by measurement. And given the depiction of it in the cartoon, it is objectively NOT rotating, ie its orientation is FIXED wrt the universe."
How can you measure whether or not an animation objectively has rotation, Nate? Please outline your method.
You have queried "base motion". Let’s look at the MOTL, instead, since you seem to be having some kind of nervous breakdown about the MOTR.
The MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
The "base motion" for a) is "rotation about an external axis". The "base motion" for b) is "translation in a circle". OK? Yes it’s just a made-up term. It’s just useful to describe what I’m trying to explain to you.
The MOTL is just an animation. We don’t know the underlying mechanics behind the motion, so it can be described as either a) or b)…and only a) or b). So, if we go for "rotation about an external axis" as our "base motion", then the MOTL is not rotating on its own internal axis. If, instead, we go for "translation in a circle" as our "base motion", then the MOTL is rotating on its own internal axis.
The consequence of choosing "rotation about an external axis" as our "base motion" is that the rotation about an internal axis will, of course, be quantified wrt a rotating reference frame.
The consequence of choosing "translation in a circle" as our "base motion" is that the rotation about an internal axis will, of course, be quantified wrt a translating reference frame (an inertial reference frame).
The choice of "base motion" comes first. The reference frame used to quantify internal axis rotation is merely a result of that choice. It goes without saying.
When we’re looking at, for example, Tim’s toy horse on the turntable, the choice of "base motion" is made for us. The turntable is objectively rotating, thus "rotation about an external axis" is the only possible choice of "base motion".
When we’re looking at, for example, Tim’s toy horse on the XY plotter, the choice of "base motion" is made for us. The XY plotter is objectively translating, thus "translation in a circle" is the only possible choice of "base motion".
“How can you measure whether or not an animation objectively has rotation, Nate? Please outline your method.”
It is clear that the orientation is fixed to the universe frame. And that is by design.
In the real world one may not know that until making the measurement. Here, given it is the premise, the measurement would agree. See your ‘absolute rotation’ link to read about the measuremnts.
Agree that ‘Base motion’ is made up. Dont see any relevance of it to determination that the MOTR has no absolute rotation.
Seems like you have substituted ‘base motion’ for ORBIT.
“The choice of “base motion” comes first. The reference frame used to quantify internal axis rotation is merely a result of that choice.”
Nobody in science or engineering does that.
It is your personal way of rationalizing that you want to look at the moon and decide if it is rotating from the Earth POV, which turns out to be a rotating reference frame.
“The turntable is objectively rotating”
You mean it has absolute rotation? Sure. Then it is measurable.
But we need’nt know what the device is to know that, since there are a thousand ways to produce that motion. But it can be measured and observed to be a rotation.
And that is all that matters, according to Kinematics.
I asked you how you could measure the rotation of an animation, Nate. You then started talking about “in the real world”. In the real world, motions apply to real objects which have mechanisms behind their motions. The GIF does not. You cannot apply any of the “absolute rotation” tests to an animation. Even if you could, those tests do not work to identify “absolute rotation”, in any case. We know that, because the CSAItruth contraption, when replicating movement like the MOTR, is objectively rotating the model moon on its own internal axis, yet “the tests” would suggest otherwise. Thus, “the tests” are falsified by direct observation. As I said, “absolute rotation” requires some improvement.
You seem to have completely stopped listening to what I’m saying, but I’ll explain a little more on “base motions”, anyway. With the MOTL, people often insist that it is rotating on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame. However, all that really amounts to is saying that the “base motion” for the MOTL is “translation in a circle”. Yet, we know that either of the two options, a) or b), could apply to the MOTL, since we don’t know what the mechanism is behind the motion. There is no physical reason to prefer one “base motion” over another, so there is no justification for quantifying the internal axis rotation of the object wrt an inertial reference frame.
I asked you how you could measure the rotation of an animation, Nate. You then started talking about in the real world.” In the real world, motions apply to real objects which have mechanisms behind their motions. The GIF does not.”
OMG, thoroughly dishonest!
I explained specifically how to tell that the orientation of the animated object is fixed to space. By design. And YOU have used this sort of observation to describe the MOTR and MOTL animations in the past!
”
You cannot apply any of the absolute rotation tests to an animation.”
No need to, as discussed above. But as noted in the real world could do so.
“Even if you could, those tests do not work to identify absolute rotation, in any case.”
Again, backsliding even more from understanding and acceptance of the concept, as you previously did!
Why?
"OMG, thoroughly dishonest!"
I’ll be requiring a retraction of that false accusation, Nate.
"I explained specifically how to tell that the orientation of the animated object is fixed to space. By design. And YOU have used this sort of observation to describe the MOTR and MOTL animations in the past!"
Wrt an inertial reference frame, the orientation of the animated object is unchanging, yes. Is that what you mean? I’m lost here, Nate. I have no idea what you’re talking about. And no, that’s not being dishonest.
"Again, backsliding even more from understanding and acceptance of the concept, as you previously did!"
I never accepted "the tests", Nate. What I accept about the concept, as I’ve already explained to you, is the idea of "absolute motion in an enclosed loop", motion that transcends reference frames. The rest needs work. I’ve been explaining it to you, and you have been ignoring me.
“Wrt an inertial reference frame, the orientation of the animated object is unchanging, yes. Is that what you mean? Im lost here, Nate. I have no idea what youre talking about. And no, thats not being dishonest.”
Now you must be playing dum. No other explanation. You have been using inertial frame of the box for years now to discuss the MOTR and MOTL.
I thought you understood that absolute rotation IS rotation wrt to the inertial frame of the universe, and that that is the frame of the box represented in the animations!
No, Nate. “Absolute rotation”, according to the article, is:
“…rotation independent of any external reference” and “is a topic of debate about relativity, cosmology, and the nature of physical laws.”
They then give an example of a space station, about which they state:
“the rotation of the space station is an "absolute", objective fact regardless of the chosen frame of reference.”
This is the part of the concept I agree with. “Absolute motion in an enclosed loop”, which transcends frames of reference.
Like the rotation of the model moon, when the CSAItruth equipment replicates movement like the MOTR. It is an absolute, objective fact that it is rotating on its own internal axis, and about an external axis.
“I never accepted “the tests”, Nate.”
After referring readers to the link, which clearly explained that the whole point of this concept is that absolute rotation is measurable with physical tests, like Newton’s bucket.
So now backsliding. Because this concept no longer seems to support your narrative.
“What I accept about the concept, as Ive already explained to you, is the idea of “absolute motion in an enclosed loop””
Not found anywhere in your link. Yet another vague, made-up ‘science’ term that enables obfuscation.
Mot convincing.
The very first thing discussed in the link to ‘absolute rotation’ was this
“For the concept of absolute rotation to be scientifically meaningful, it must be measurable. In other words, can an observer distinguish between the rotation of an observed object and their own rotation? Newton suggested two experiments to resolve this problem. One is the effects of centrifugal force upon the shape of the surface of water rotating in a bucket, equivalent to the phenomenon of rotational gravity used in proposals for human spaceflight. The second is the effect of centrifugal force upon the tension in a string joining two spheres rotating about their center of mass.”
Then at the end.
“The idea is that the local motion of a rotating reference frame is determined by the large-scale distribution of matter in the universe.”.
“In general relativity, no external causes are invoked. The rotation is relative to the local geodesics, and since the local geodesics eventually channel information from the distant stars, there appears to be absolute rotation relative to these stars.”
You keep bringing up specific devices for creating rotation or orbit. That somehow the OPR description of the motion that is produced should be different for different devices.
That is of course the opposite of the notion of ‘absolute rotation’ which cannot be device-dependent. And nowhere in the link does it suggest such a device-dependence for rotation.
Nate demonstrates that he doesn’t bother reading what I write.
"After referring readers to the link, which clearly explained that the whole point of this concept is that absolute rotation is measurable with physical tests, like Newton’s bucket.
So now backsliding. Because this concept no longer seems to support your narrative."
No, Nate. I’ve already told you that isn’t the case. I’m not "backsliding". I never agreed with "the tests", because the conclusions from those tests are refuted by direct observation. What I agreed with was the principle of the motion transcending reference frames.
"You keep bringing up specific devices for creating rotation or orbit. That somehow the OPR description of the motion that is produced should be different for different devices."
I do indeed keep bringing up the mechanics behind the motion. Because, without involving that, the moon issue cannot be resolved.
Do you agree that the model moon in the CSAItruth contraption, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is objectively rotating about both an external and internal axis?
“because the conclusions from those tests are refuted by direct observation.”
More like refuted your imagination.
For the MOTR there are no direct observations refuting that there is ZERO rotation.
For the MOTL direct observation shows that it has rotation, and the tests would agree!
Remember that the whole point of ‘absolute rotation’, the idea that you recently liked and promoted around here, is that
“For the concept of absolute rotation to be scientifically meaningful, it must be measurable.”
What measurement do you propose to detect rotation of a moon moving like the MOTR wrt to the stars and have it be meaningful to scientists?
If we use any of the ones mentioned in the article, like Newton’s bucket, we won’t detect anything.
Only if use the measuring tool known as DREMT’s imagination, would we ‘detect’ rotation, but realistically, that is unlikely to be meaningful to any scientist.
Suppose the body moving like the MOTR has a hidden rotating arm and attached spinning motor causing it to move the way we see.
If a scientist needed to measure the body’s rotation, and she used Newton’s bucket placed on the body, it would still not detect rotation.
Why would it?
Because the motion is identical.
That is the point of Kinematics, to objectively observe and measure motion and describe it mathematically, without regard to mechanism, so that someone else can then seek a mechanism to explain it.
That has been useful in physics for four centuries.
Galileo observed and measured the motion of projectiles, and was able to describe that motion mathematically, without knowing the mechanism.
That was the first modern use of Kinematics.
Kepler was able to observe and measure the motions of planets and describe that motion, without knowing the mechanism.
In order for Newton to develop his theory to explain the mechanism for these motions, he needed a mathematical representation of these motions, and that is exactly what Galileo and Kepler gave him!
It seems to be your view that Galileo’s or Kepler’s discoveries were wrong or at least useless, because they did not know or describe the mechanism of these motions.
And of course, all physicists would vehemently disagree.
"More like refuted your imagination."
No, Nate. As I already said, and you ignored, "the tests" would suggest that the CSAItruth model moon, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is not rotating on its own internal axis. However, we directly observe that the CSAItruth model moon is rotating on its own internal axis. Thus, "the tests" are refuted.
We don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, though. The idea of motion that transcends reference frames is "absolutely" fine. Motion in an enclosed loop does so, because the orientation of the object in the loop can always be described wrt the loop itself.
Please answer my question, Nate. If you don’t agree that the model moon, with a motor beneath it spinning it in place, is objectively rotating on its own internal axis, I don’t know if you can be reached. You might be beyond help.
“Please answer my question, Nate. If you dont agree that the model moon, with a motor beneath it spinning it in place, is objectively rotating on its own internal axis”
I answered your question here..
“Suppose the body moving like the MOTR has a hidden rotating arm and attached spinning motor causing it to move the way we see it.
If a scientist needed to measure the bodys rotation, and she used Newtons bucket placed on the body, it would still not detect rotation.
Why would it?”
The body is not rotating. The hidden mechanism is often hidden in physics, as it was for Galileo and Kepler.
Yet they still were able to describe the motions they observed.
That is the purpose of Kinematics.
Because the motion is identical.
That is the point of Kinematics
Oh I see this was the question.
“Do you agree that the model moon in the CSAItruth contraption, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is objectively rotating about both an external and internal axis?”
No for several reasons.
1. I am only interested in describing the motion of the model moon. And it, objectively, measurably, has NO rotation.
2. I’m am not interested in the motions of the arm or the motor, because those are other objects.
3. The underlying mechanism for the motion is a different question, not an answer to the question ‘what is the motion?’
4. The mechanism could be hidden, and that should not change what the motion IS. For example the minute hand on a clock is objectively, measurably rotating at 1rev/hr. The hidden mechanism, with dozens of gears rotating at various rates is of no interest for people looking at the clock, who can accurately describe its motion without knowing anything about the mechanism.
5. Obviously people need to be able to observe and describe motion without knowing the mechanism for that motion.
Kinematics won’t answer the question of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis, Nate. We need to go beyond that. So yes, we need to be looking at the mechanism behind the motion.
How do you rationalise away the direct observation, from the video, that when the “orbit motior” stops, you can see the model moon rotating on its own internal axis, still? You talk about “the tests” as if they falsify the direct observation, from your own eyes! You have everything backwards, as usual. The direct observation falsifies the usage of “the tests”, not the other way around. The model moon, when the CSAItruth contraption replicates movement like the MOTR, is objectively rotating on its own internal axis.
"Kinematics won’t answer the question of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis, Nate".
Guess you might want me to expand on that. Kinematics can get you to the point where motion like the MOTL is described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
It should be noted that those descriptions are "absolute", in that one of them will be correct for any real object moving like the MOTL, and that the descriptions transcend reference frames. Obviously, if you go with "rotation about an external axis" as your "base motion", then there is no rotation about an internal axis, whereas if you go with "translation in a circle" as your "base motion", then there is rotation about an internal axis.
I’ve answered your question. And gave 5 reasons for my answer. But you just repeat your talking points, while not addressing or rebutting any of those. I guess you are unable.
So without knowing the hidden underlying mechanism for a motion, like that for the minute hand on a clock, would you claim that we cannot observe, measure or describe its motion?
Your five points only demonstrate that you’re not getting what I mean.
As for your clock example:
We don’t need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock. We don’t need to know the underlying mechanism for the motor that’s rotating the model moon on its own internal axis, with the CSAItruth contraption, either. We simply observe that the motor is rotating the model moon on its own internal axis. Similarly, with the clock…we can observe that the minute hand is rotating about an axis in the centre of the clock. Attach a model moon so that is physically unable to rotate on its own internal axis, on the end of that minute hand, and we can observe that it is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own internal axis.
The "base motion" for the model moon on the minute hand is, objectively, "rotation about an external axis". Thus we know that option a) is chosen for us, and since the overall movement is like the MOTL, we know that the model moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.
> We dont need to know the underlying mechanism for the motor
So much the worse for Graham D. Warner’s claim regarding any kind of O B J E C T I V E R E A L I T Y!
“Your five points only demonstrate that youre not getting what I mean.”
As I suspected, you cannot rebut them.
“As for your clock example:
We dont need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock.”
Note that you were still able to observe, measure and describe the motion of the minute hand as a rotation with measurable rate.
That is the point, that applies in general to ANY body in motion.
Now simply apply the principle you just agreed to above to the model moon:
‘We don’t need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the motion of the MOTR, which we can observe and measure to be a pure translation’
Why? You can know the mechanism behind the motor that spins the model moon on its own internal axis, if you wish. What would it change, though? Objectively, it’s spinning the model moon on its own internal axis. What is it about knowing the mechanism behind the motor that would change that fact? Nothing.
Similarly, the XY plotter is objectively translating a model moon in a circle. You could know more about the mechanisms behind the functioning of the XY plotter, but it won’t change that fact.
When I say you need to know the mechanism behind the motion, I’m referring to the absolute basics. Not every detail of every component of the equipment used. Only the basics, which actually involve the motion in an enclosed loop. So, with Tim’s toy horse on a turntable, it suffices to know that "rotation about an external axis" is the "base motion" for the horse, because the turntable is objectively rotating. For the toy horse on an XY plotter, it suffices to know that "translation in a circle" is the "base motion", because the XY plotter objectively translates objects.
My last comment was in response to Little Willy. Nate demands a rebuttal to his five points, despite never confirming that he still agrees with my point 2) from the points 1) – 4). Nevertheless, since I’m the bigger man:
"1. I am only interested in describing the motion of the model moon. And it, objectively, measurably, has NO rotation."
Those "measurements" are contrary to the direct observation that the CSAItruth model moon, when replicating motion like the MOTR, is rotating on its own internal axis. Observation wins.
"2. I’m am not interested in the motions of the arm or the motor, because those are other objects."
Sure. We’re interested in the motion of the object moving in an enclosed loop.
"3. The underlying mechanism for the motion is a different question, not an answer to the question ‘what is the motion?"
So you believe. I’m trying to demonstrate that this isn’t the case.
"4. The mechanism could be hidden, and that should not change what the motion IS. For example the minute hand on a clock is objectively, measurably rotating at 1rev/hr. The hidden mechanism, with dozens of gears rotating at various rates is of no interest for people looking at the clock, who can accurately describe its motion without knowing anything about the mechanism."
The minute hand on a clock is not really an object moving in an enclosed loop. Stick a model moon on the end of the minute hand. Now you have an object moving in an enclosed loop. Refer to my previous comment about the clock.
"5. Obviously people need to be able to observe and describe motion without knowing the mechanism for that motion."
With minimal effort, people can determine what motion is objectively occurring through simple observation of the basic mechanism.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] We dont need to know the underlying mechanism for the motor
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] You can know the mechanism behind the motor that spins the model moon on its own internal axis, if you wish.
Graham D. Warner always builds himself motte-and-baileys like that.
You can know it if you wish, but you don’t need to know it. I then went on to give a thorough explanation, and you have ignored every word, Little Willy. All you focus on are a few words from each post that you can try to arrange as if there is some contradiction or inconsistency. You have no interest in learning other people’s perspectives…and now you’re here, you won’t leave, again.
Graham D. Warner does not need to know anything about reality. He just needs to appeal to it, and to proclaim that his pet theory, a theory nobody but him and a few fellow cranks hold, is the one that approximates it best. In fact it goes to the bottom of it. Or at least the CSA Truther’s silly trick presumably does.
All this because Graham D. Warner fails to apply correctly the concepts of independence and equivalence.
Sad, really.
OK, Little Willy. All wrong, but…whatever you say. I know there’s no point talking to you about any subject. Ever.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner could meditate on that blunder:
Hint: a mechanism isn’t obtained by observation alone.
DREMT,
You are clearly able to apply logic, up until it runs into belief, then that takes over.
“The minute hand on a clock is not really an object moving in an enclosed loop.”
Gee, yet another made up sciency sounding term that nobody else uses, but you do. Sorry I call BS on that as a valid argument.
You plainly agreed with my key point that you dont need to know the mechanism to be able observe, measure and describe a motion.
For the minute hand on the clock you could identify it as a rotation because you know that a rotation involves a change in orientation. And you could measure its rate. There is no ambiguity: it is a rotation.
There is no need to know the mechanism. And knowing it would not stop it from being a rotation.
Now for the MOTR. You can observe measure and describe its motion, which is clearly NOT a rotation, has no measurable rotation, without knowing anything about the underlying mechanism.
But you say no, if you can see the underlying mechanism, then that you would no longer be able to simply observe, measure, and describe the motion as what it was, NOT a rotation.
Knowing the mechanism could alter
“3. The underlying mechanism for the motion is a different question, not an answer to the question what is the motion?”
So you believe. Im trying to demonstrate that this isnt the case.”
And so you believed. As you clearly stated and applied to the clock.
For the minute hand you could without hesitation answer the question: it is a rotation. The underlying mechanism is the answer to the question: How does that clock work?
If the hand was not rotating you could again recognize that, without need to know anything about the mechanism.
But not so for the MOTR.
Nate, for the purposes of this discussion, you can consider "motion in an enclosed loop" to be movement of an object like the MOTL or the MOTR.
The arm of a clock is not really moving like either the MOTL or the MOTR. It is moving more like a rigid arm connecting the MOTL or the MOTR to the centre of the "Earth circle". As you said yourself:
"I’m am not interested in the motions of the arm or the motor, because those are other objects."
To relate your example to our discussion, we need to attach a model moon to the end of the minute hand. Now we have an object moving like the MOTL or the MOTR (so, we have "motion in an enclosed loop"). If we attach the model moon rigidly, it will be moving like the MOTL. This is the sort of level of detail in the mechanism behind the motion that we need to understand. Not a lot, in other words. Just like we don’t need to understand the underlying workings of the "orbit motor" in the CSAItruth contraption, we don’t need to understand the underlying workings of the clock. We just need to know that there is a rigid rotating arm, attached to a motor at the centre of the device, and that the model moon is at the other end, for example.
> Just like we dont need to understand the underlying workings of the “orbit motor” in the [CSA Truther’s] contraption
We actually need to have some kind of naive physics modules regarding motors, otherwise the Truther’s trick would not work.
That naive physics module leads astray as long as the proper mathematical module does not kick in.
My apologies to anyone reading…I had forgotten that Little Willy had been put on “ignore/automatic PST” for this sub-thread.
“We dont need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock.”
Why can you observe the motion of of the clock and describe it as a rotation, but are unable to describe the motion of the MOTR as what it IS NOT, a rotation?
How do you tell a motion is a rotation? Clearly it is all about its changing orientation.
It seems that your ability to recognize motions is hindered by the position you have long staked out.
It’s all such a mystery to you, Nate. If only you’d been reading my comments, you might have understood.
“…but are unable to describe the motion of the MOTR as what it IS NOT, a rotation?”
The MOTR is just a GIF, an animation. As such, we cannot know the mechanism behind the motion, so we can only go as far as kinematics takes us, i.e its motion could be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Whereas, we know any real object moving like the MOTR will objectively be doing one of them. For instance:
The CSAItruth contraption would objectively be doing a).
An XY plotter translating a model moon in a circle would objectively be doing b).
“Why can you observe the motion of of the clock and describe it as a rotation…”
You can observe that the minute hand is physically attached to something that rotates in the centre of the clock. You don’t need to take the clock apart to see that.
However, once again…you need to add a little model moon or other object to the end of the minute hand for this to relate to our discussion, in any case.
“You can observe that the minute hand is physically attached to something that rotates in the centre of the clock. You dont need to take the clock apart to see that.”
Who cares? Since you already made it abundantly clear that you don’t need to know anything about the mechanism to know its motion is a rotation!
Grasping at straws.
“Its all such a mystery to you, Nate.”
Yes, how your mind works is a great mystery to all of us. It certainly doesnt operate using ordinary logic.
In fact, we know that you are required to defend your position, and continue to argue it, to the death, not because it is the truth, but simply because your opponents are in some way ‘bad people’.
“The MOTR is just a GIF, an animation. As such, we cannot know the mechanism behind the motion”
Indeed, so all your reference to motors and arms is a great big red herring!
“so we can only go as far as kinematics takes us”
Which is very clear. This motion is NOT a rotation. It must therefore be a Translation.
But you won’t even acknowledge this.
“a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.”
Nope! There is no evidence of any rotation here.
Your (a) is speculating about motions of an imaginary mechanism,
which in any case is not involved in planetary motion.
There are no arms or motors, or anything remotely similar to them involved in planetary motion.
“Who cares? Since you already made it abundantly clear that you don’t need to know anything about the mechanism to know its motion is a rotation!”
What I’ve been trying to get across to you is that you don’t need to know all the intricate details of the internal clock mechanisms to know that a minute hand which is attached to something in the centre of the clock that is powered to rotate, is then rotating. Just like you don’t need to know the internal mechanism of the “orbit motor” for the CSAItruth contraption, you only need to know that the motor is attached to a rigid arm that is then also rotating, thus rotating the model moon about an external axis.
As regards your third (!) response (the second was just insults), are you seriously suggesting that kinematics does not present option a) as a way of describing motion like the MOTR!? It follows directly from the existence of “rotation about an external axis”, Nate. If “rotation about an external axis” exists as a motion, then the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions. If option a) exists for the MOTL, then option a) for the MOTR exists, too.
“What Ive been trying to get across to you is that you dont need to know all the intricate details of the internal clock mechanisms to know that a minute hand which is attached to something in the centre of the clock that is powered to rotate, is then rotating.”
Youve entirely missed the point, which you earlier had agreed to, that you don’t need to know ANY of the details of the underlying mechanism, to know what the motion of the minute hand is, since you can simply DIRECTLY OBSERVE the motion, and determine that it is a rotation.
“Just like you dont need to know the internal mechanism of the orbit motor for the CSAItruth contraption, you only need to know that the motor is attached to a rigid arm that is then also rotating, thus rotating the model moon about an external axis.”
Intricate details include its attachment to an arm and the presence of a motor!
None of those details are needed to simply DIRECTLY OBSERVE the motion of the model moon, and determine that it is NOT a rotation.
You seem determined to evade applying the logic you used for the clock, to other motions.
The point is that we are only interested in the motion of the moon, not the motions of any of the parts of the mechanism.
For example a car is travelling east at constant velocity, and we can directly observe, measure and describe that motion as a pure TRANSLATION of the car.
Knowledge that the mechanism for the motion involves ROTATION of the wheels and engine parts, does not change what we observe the CAR to be doing.
It would be ludicrous to describe the motion of the car as several rotations of the tires, engine parts etc, none of which are the CAR’s motion.
Thus, knowledge that the mechanism for the motion of the MOTR involves rotations of an arm and motor parts, does not change what we observe the MOTR to be doing.
“you seriously suggesting that kinematics does not present option a) as a way of describing motion like the MOTR!?”
If it did, there would be an infinite number of possible motions that, in combination, could result in the observed motion.
Why not 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations?
No. Kinematics does not speculate, it is only about describing the observable motion.
“It follows directly from the existence of rotation about an external axis, Nate.”
I don’t know what this means? What existence is observable?
I have comprehensively demolished your argument about the minute hand in previous comments, and feel no need to repeat myself further.
You may proceed to the second paragraph of my last comment, when ready.
“Why not 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations?”
eg
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/813bPr1HVfL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
Nate, do you believe that there is such a concept as “rotation about an external axis”?
Yes, now address the points that I made.
” demolished your argument about the minute hand in previous comments”
Pffft.
By denying that you can directly observe and recognize that it is a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about the mechanism?
“Yes”
Good. From that, it follows that the a) descriptions can apply.
And it follows that 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations could apply.
But none of this speculation as to the mechanism, changes what the observable motion is.
I am glad to hear you agree it follows that the a) descriptions can apply.
Is “translation in a circle” observable in the MOTL?
“We dont need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock.”
Ever since you made this statement that you can detect and describe the rotation of the minute hand, without knowing the mechanism, you have been trying to weasel out of it.
Do you wish to now retract it? Why?
That was not the end of the statement, Nate. The entire comment exists. I feel no need to keep repeating myself, except to ask you, again:
Is “translation in a circle” observable in the MOTL?
MOTL translating? Yes, clearly we know that because one can ask ‘where is the MOTL at this moment?’ iow, what is its position of this independent body in space?
Just as for any body in orbit, we know its position in space is changing with time, which is what TRANSLATION means.
And of course, since, in general, orbits are ellipses, and cannot be described as rotations around an external axis, it makes perfect sense to use translation to describe the motion of bodies in orbit.
Then you are not retracting the statement about no need to know anything about the mechanism of the rotation of the minute hand?
Then why the weaseling out of it, talking about the axel attached to it, there must be a motor etc.
Look, a ball can be rotating as it flies past you, without any motors or axels attached. And yet you can recognize its motion is a rotation.
Yes?
The correct answer was “no”, Nate…because the change in position of the body could be due to “rotation about an external axis”.
I see you are getting into your usual ‘ignore your opponents points and just pay attention to my points’ mode. That made Barry give up trying to have a discussion with you.
So let me repeat what you plainly ignored.
MOTL translating? Yes, clearly we know that because one can ask where is the MOTL at this moment? iow, what is its position of this independent body in space?
Just as for any body in orbit, we know its position in space is changing with time, which is what TRANSLATION means.
And of course, since, in general, orbits are ellipses, and cannot be described as rotations around an external axis, it makes perfect sense to use translation to describe the motion of bodies in orbit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661263
Nope, obviously you’re frustrated and stopped paying attention to my posts, while expecting me to continue paying attention to yours.
That is not really honest debate, is it.
Thus Barry stopped discussing with you.
Thus I stop discussing with you.
I’m not frustrated at all, Nate. I asked you:
“Is “translation in a circle” observable in the MOTL?”
The correct answer is “no”, because the observed change in position of the MOTL in space could be due to the “rotation about an external axis”, and not to “translation in a circle”.
This should make you realise how silly you are being about the MOTR.
Still not responding to my points, and just restating yours. Not honest debate then.
“could be due to the”
is clearly a statement about possible MECHANISMs for the motion, not a description of the motion.
The motion is objectively observable, and measurable with experiments to not be a rotation.
Then it must be a translation.
In science observations come first, then measurement, before mechanism (theory)can be determined.
The question was about the MOTL, not the MOTR.
My response refutes your points. It is quite simple. What do you not understand?
Nah.
And you havent dealt with any of this. Obviously you have no answers.
“you seriously suggesting that kinematics does not present option a) as a way of describing motion like the MOTR!?
If it did, there would be an infinite number of possible motions that, in combination, could result in the observed motion.
Why not 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations?
No. Kinematics does not speculate, it is only about describing the observable motion.”
As far as the MOTL, we both agree that it has CCW rotation wrt the inertial frame.
Why do we agree?
-Its orientation is changing wrt the stars.
-Its rotation could be measured by an observer on it looking up at the stars.
-And its rotation can be objectively measured, with a Foucault pendulum or Newton’s bucket.
So why can’t we agree that the MOTR has NO rotation?
-Its rotation cannot be detect by on observer on it looking at the stars.
-It cant be detected by the equipment mentioned above.
-Its motion can be obtained from the MOTL, by simply giving it a CW axial rotation of equal angular speed, CANCELLING the rotation that we both agreed the MOTL had!
Nate…try to focus on one thing at a time.
The movement of the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Those are the two valid kinematic descriptions of the movement.
I asked you:
Is “translation in a circle” observable in the MOTL?
The correct answer is “no”, but you answered “yes”. You were wrong. You need to accept that.
You cannot observe “translation in a circle” in the MOTL, because that change in position of the MOTL that you attributed to translation – that could actually be due to “rotation about an external axis”, instead. We can’t say. We cannot choose between a) and b), just from studying the movement of the MOTL.
You tried to imply earlier that since we could not observe “rotation about an external axis” in the MOTR, that meant it must be objectively translating. Throwing away option a). However, we cannot observe “translation in a circle” in the MOTL, either, yet we don’t throw away option b). Do you really not see the parallel?
“Why not 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations?”
Why not x cancelling rotations, plus y cancelling translations, for the MOTL, Nate? See? It’s not an argument that settles anything! You have already agreed that the a) description for the MOTR can apply. Since it can apply, we cannot determine if the MOTR is rotating about its own internal axis or not. We need to go further than kinematics can take us, to choose between a) or b) for any real object. Same story as for the MOTL.
Plus, you have seen a video where the CSAItruth equipment rotates a model moon about both an external axis and an internal axis, and replicates movement like the MOTR. That refutes your argument about “the tests”. Once again, direct observation trumps the idea that these tests remove option a) from the table, for the MOTR.
So yes, Nate…all your arguments have been rebutted.
“The movement of the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.”
It can be be described as either one. But so what?
-(a) it is a description that only applies to this unique orbit.
-(a) is useless as a description of our Moon’s orbit, which is the ultimate purpose of these discussions.
-(a) is useless as a description of orbits in general.
“You tried to imply earlier that since we could not observe rotation about an external axis in the MOTR, that meant it must be objectively translating.”
Indeed true.
“Throwing away option a). However, we cannot observe translation in a circle in the MOTL, either, yet we dont throw away option b). Do you really not see the parallel?”
No and the reason is clearly explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661300
Let’s see if you’ll actually address those points.
“It can be be described as either one. But so what?”
So, absolutely everything that I have been explaining to you, follows. Thanks for finally stating that you still agree with my point 2), from the points 1) – 4).
You should understand why, when you answered “yes” to my question about whether “translation in a circle” was observable in the MOTL, you were wrong. Can you admit you were wrong? If you are unable to concede points, there is little point in us continuing.
You should understand that the MOTR can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
So, whether for movement like the MOTR, the object is rotating on its own internal axis, or not, simply depends on whether you go with “rotation about an external axis”, or “translation in a circle”, as your “base motion”. For the MOTR GIF itself, it is only an animation, we cannot know the mechanics behind the motion, so we cannot choose between them. For any real object, we can look at the mechanics behind the motion, and thus make a decision. For the CSAItruth equipment, we know that “rotation about an external axis” is the “base motion”.
For the ball on a string, we also know that “rotation about an external axis” is the “base motion”. So, the ball on a string, moving as per the MOTL, is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis.
… as observed by the ball on string spinner.
You are not welcome in this discussion, Ball4.
Lots of dishonest debate tactics at work.
Such as not addressing the points that your opponent makes, such as:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661300
Apparently you have no answers.
We agree that the MOTL has rotation wrt to space. The MOTR, whose motion can be obtained from the MOTL by simply adding an axial rotation to it in the opposite direction, thus cancelling the rotation that we both agree the MOTL had.
Logically then, the MOTL has no rotation.
And indeed none can be measured or observed.
Do you agree that it has no rotation?
Or will continue to deny what is plainly obvious?
Arrgh,
Should have said
“Logically then, the MOTR has no rotation.”
I have just answered one of your questions.
I see now that you are asking me MORE questions, while not answering mine or addressing the points I’ve made.
So that’s a no go, until I get some answers back from you.
“So, whether for movement like the MOTR, the object is rotating on its own internal axis, or not, simply depends on whether you go with rotation about an external axis, or translation in a circle, as your base motion.”
Wrong. It has no rotation, period. Thus it can have no axis of rotation, period.
“For the MOTR GIF itself, it is only an animation, we cannot know the mechanics behind the motion, so we cannot choose between them.”
Yes we can. As this discussion has clearly demonstrated, we do not need to know the mechanism of a motion to determine what the motion IS. And you admitted just that for an object which had an observable rotation.
“For any real object, we can look at the mechanics behind the motion, and thus make a decision. For the CSAItruth equipment, we know that rotation about an external axis is the base motion.”
Again FALSE.
You are still confused, and looking at the motion of OTHER objects, the arm, and the motor, neither of which are the object of interest here, which is the moon.
The motion of other objects is irrelevant to deciding what the motion of the moon is.
Just as for the minute hand on the clock, the motion of any of the dozens of gears and rocker arms was irrelevant to your observation that the minute hands motion is a rotation at 1 rev/hr.
As you clearly stated
“We dont need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock.”
Thus we don’t need to know the underlying mechanism that drives the non-rotational motion of the MOTR.
Nate keeps bringing this up:
“We dont need to know the underlying mechanism that ultimately drives the rotation of the minute hand on the clock.”
He is determined to take an out of context quote and use it over and over again to pretend I am saying something that I’m not. Then, he whines to me about “dishonest debate tactics”.
The minute hand of a clock is analogous to the model moon on the CSAItruth equipment, when it is not “orbiting”, just sitting there in one spot, with the “moon spin” motor engaged. Yes, we know the model moon is spinning, because there is a motor beneath it, spinning it. Similarly, we know the minute hand of the clock is spinning, because there is a component beneath it, spinning it. We don’t need to know the mechanism behind the motor that spins the model moon, just as we don’t need to know the internal clock mechanisms behind the component that spins the minute hand.
To distinguish between option a) and option b) for a real object moving like either the MOTL or the MOTR, however, we do need to know the mechanism behind the motion. A minute hand is not an object moving like either the MOTL or the MOTR. A model moon rigidly attached to the end of the minute hand, however, would be an object moving like the MOTL. Then we could assess the mechanism behind the motion, which still would not include needing to know the internal mechanisms within the clock itself. All we would need to know is that there is a component spinning the minute hand, thus rotating the model moon about an external axis.
Do you understand?
"We agree that the MOTL has rotation wrt to space."
Without specifying the axis of rotation, that is an utterly meaningless sentence.
"The MOTR, whose motion can be obtained from the MOTL by simply adding an axial rotation to it in the opposite direction, thus cancelling the rotation that we both agree the MOTL had. Logically then, the MOT[R] has no rotation."
Not true, because the MOTR could be rotating about two different axes!
“Similarly, we know the minute hand of the clock is spinning, because there is a component beneath it, spinning it.”
C’mon, are you really that logically impaired?
If we see that there is a component beneath it spinning it, we need to be able to recognize that that thing is rotating!
If any component beneath it spinning it is hidden, we can still recognize it as a rotation.
Eg. a ball flying past us is spinning. We can recognize its rotation even without anything spinning it.
Why are you working so hard to say that you don’t know how to identify a rotation?
“We agree that the MOTL has rotation wrt to space.”
Without specifying the axis of rotation, that is an utterly meaningless sentence.”
You are most definitely wrong, and also disagreeing with things you have said many times in the past. Madhavi is laughing at you.
In the past you have agreed that rotation is a changing orientation wrt the inertial frame, which the the MOTL plainly is.
Putting a Foucault pendulum on it would detect rotation just as it does for the Earth, and I know you know all about that.
The whole point of Foucault inventing his pendulum was to prove the rotation of the Earth, and he demonstrated it to all the Kings of Europe and it has been a staple of museums ever since.
Focus on this part, Nate:
"A minute hand is not an object moving like either the MOTL or the MOTR. A model moon rigidly attached to the end of the minute hand, however, would be an object moving like the MOTL. Then we could assess the mechanism behind the motion, which still would not include needing to know the internal mechanisms within the clock itself."
OK? Your minute hand argument is debunked.
"In the past you have agreed that rotation is a changing orientation wrt the inertial frame, which the the MOTL plainly is."
Sure, but the converse, that a lack of change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame means there is no rotation, is false. We know that, because the model moon in the CSAItruth equipment, when replicating movement like the MOTR, is objectively rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
Nate, you have agreed that the movement of the MOTR can be described as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions. So why are you simultaneously trying to argue that it can only be described as translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis? You’re contradicting yourself.
Nate quotes me:
"For the MOTR GIF itself, it is only an animation, we cannot know the mechanics behind the motion, so we cannot choose between them [options a) or b)]
and says:
"Yes we can. As this discussion has clearly demonstrated, we do not need to know the mechanism of a motion to determine what the motion IS. And you admitted just that for an object which had an observable rotation."
Nate, you need to know the mechanics behind the motion to determine which of the options a) or b) is occurring for a real object moving like the MOTL, yes? If being honest with yourself, and correctly agreeing "yes" to that question, you should then see that the exact same principle applies with the MOTR.
“A minute hand is not an object moving like either the MOTL or the MOTR.”
It has rotation, and you (reluctantly) had to admit that you can recognize it is a rotation without any knowledge of the mechanism.
Now you should be able to apply this principle and logic to ANY motion and access whether it is a rotation or contains rotation.
And you and I clearly CAN do that for the MOTL. It has rotation, regardless of axis.
But for the MOTR, only I can recognize that it plainly lacks rotation. How? Because its orientation is fixed. It is plainly moving with curvilinear translation.
And Madhavi would agree. SO would every Kinematics of Rigid Body text.
SO why can’t you? You are not making sense.
You claim that you can recognize that the MOTL has rotation, without knowing anything about a mechanism.
Then implausibly, for the MOTR, you again NEED to see the mechanism:
“Sure, but the converse, that a lack of change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame means there is no rotation, is false.”
No, no, no. You are just not being logical here.
“We know that, because the model moon in the CSAItruth equipment, when replicating movement like the MOTR, is objectively rotating about both an external and an internal axis.”
As I noted earlier, you are looking at OTHER bodies, and are able to discern that THEY are rotating (just by observing their motion).
But they are not the model moon, the body of interest.
Should say
As I noted earlier, you are looking at OTHER bodies, the arm, and the motor, and recognizing what their motion is.
Nate, you have agreed that the movement of the MOTR can be described as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions. So why are you simultaneously trying to argue that it can only be described as translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis? You’re contradicting yourself.
Nate quotes me:
"For the MOTR GIF itself, it is only an animation, we cannot know the mechanics behind the motion, so we cannot choose between them [options a) or b)]
and says:
"Yes we can. As this discussion has clearly demonstrated, we do not need to know the mechanism of a motion to determine what the motion IS. And you admitted just that for an object which had an observable rotation."
Nate, you need to know the mechanics behind the motion to determine which of the options a) or b) is occurring for a real object moving like the MOTL, yes? If being honest with yourself, and correctly agreeing "yes" to that question, you should then see that the exact same principle applies with the MOTR.
“Nate, you have agreed that the movement of the MOTR can be described as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.”
Where did I say that? Quote me.
“”So why are you simultaneously trying to argue that it can only be described as translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis? Youre contradicting yourself.”
What I would agree to is that the CAUSE, ie the MECHANISM, of a motion like the MOTR could be two or even several cancelling rotations or translations.
That is not an observation, measurement or description of the MOTION itlself, which is determined by only observing the motion.
As you and I did for the minute hand of the clock, and the MOTL.
We were both able to determine that these motions contain a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about the mechanism, or the CAUSE of the motions.
And if the clock stopped, and the minute hand stopped moving, you would instantly be able to recognize that motion as NO rotation.
And we can do the same for the MOTR. Observing the motion of the MOTR, it is abundantly clear that it contains NO rotation.
So it is illogical of you to claim that,
“Sure, but the converse, that a lack of change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame means there is no rotation, is false.”
You agreed that for the minute hand on the clock, and for the MOTL, you don’t NEED to know anything about the mechanism to observe and determine that these motions contained a rotation. And there would be no doubt that you can recognize the converse for stopped clock, that it contains no rotation (even if the clock was bing translated across the room!
So it is quite disingenuous of you to suggest that the MOTR situation is different or in some way unique, and thus REQUIRES knowledge of the mechanism to observe that it has NO rotation.
It’s orientation is FIXED. Thus there is no logic to prevent us from knowing that it is NOT rotating.
“Nate, you need to know the mechanics behind the motion to determine which of the options a) or b) is occurring for a real object moving like the MOTL, yes?”
No, I don’t see any evidence that the choice is being made for representing planetary motion based on the mechanism.
For science, b) is used because orbits in general MUST be described that way, so to change their representation of orbits to a) just for the rare case of perfectly circular orbits with synchronous rotations, made no sense.
And for your choice to use a) for planets or moons, what underlying mechanism do you imagine to drive that choice?
Nate says, "quote me". OK, then:
[DREMT] Nate, do you believe that there is such a concept as “rotation about an external axis”?
[NATE] Yes…
[DREMT] Good. From that, it follows that the a) descriptions can apply.
[NATE] And it follows that 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations could apply.
The "and it follows…" suggests that you accept that the a) descriptions can apply. Note that they are descriptions, nothing to do with "mechanism".
"What I would agree to is that the CAUSE, ie the MECHANISM, of a motion like the MOTR could be two or even several cancelling rotations or translations. That is not an observation, measurement or description of the MOTION itlself, which is determined by only observing the motion. As you and I did for the minute hand of the clock, and the MOTL. We were both able to determine that these motions contain a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about the mechanism, or the CAUSE of the motions. And if the clock stopped, and the minute hand stopped moving, you would instantly be able to recognize that motion as NO rotation."
He’s still on about the minute hand! Unbelievable. Nate, once and for all…your argument with the minute hand is akin to saying that we can determine whether or not an object is rotating on its own internal axis when it is not "orbiting". Fine…but completely besides the entire point of the discussion! The entire point of the discussion is to determine whether or not an object is rotating on its own internal axis when it is orbiting! When an object is moving like the MOTL or the MOTR, there is a question mark over whether or not it is rotating on its own internal axis, no!? I mean…that’s literally the entire point of the discussion! So why are you talking about objects that are not orbiting!? Please, just leave the minute hand on the clock thing alone.
"And we can do the same for the MOTR. Observing the motion of the MOTR, it is abundantly clear that it contains NO rotation. So it is illogical of you to claim that,
“Sure, but the converse, that a lack of change in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame means there is no rotation, is false.”
You agreed that for the minute hand on the clock, and for the MOTL, you don’t NEED to know anything about the mechanism to observe and determine that these motions contained a rotation."
For movement like the MOTL, you most definitely do need to know something about the mechanics behind the motion to determine whether or not the object is rotating on its own internal axis or not, which is, of course, the entire point of the discussion! You have to be able to choose between option a), and option b).
"And there would be no doubt that you can recognize the converse for stopped clock, that it contains no rotation (even if the clock was bing translated across the room! So it is quite disingenuous of you to suggest that the MOTR situation is different or in some way unique, and thus REQUIRES knowledge of the mechanism to observe that it has NO rotation. It’s orientation is FIXED. Thus there is no logic to prevent us from knowing that it is NOT rotating."
Deary me. Nate…if movement of the MOTR could be definitively described in only one way, then it follows that movement of the MOTL could be definitively described in only one way. But you have already agreed that movement of the MOTL can be described in two different ways!
You’re arguing with yourself.
…and what is with your bizarre new habit of talking about movement like the MOTR, broken down into two motions, as being about "the mechanism" rather than what it is…a description!?
Speaking of movement like the MOTR as being a rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions (so, breaking it down into two separate motions), is a description. It has nothing to do with "mechanism", at this stage.
Similarly, for the MOTL, speaking of its movement as being a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (so, breaking it down into two separate motions), is a description. It has nothing to do with "mechanism", at this stage.
You can accept it for the MOTL…but for some reason, not for the MOTR!
"Mechanism" comes into the equation when we are looking at real objects that are moving like the MOTL or the MOTR. Then we look at the mechanics behind the motion, to decide between option a) or option b). Option a) and option b) are descriptions of the movement.
“Nate says, “quote me”. OK, then:
[DREMT] Nate, do you believe that there is such a concept as rotation about an external axis?
[NATE] Yes
[DREMT] Good. From that, it follows that the a) descriptions can apply.
[NATE] And it follows that 10 cancelling rotations, plus 6 cancelling translations could apply.
The “and it follows” suggests that you accept that the a) descriptions can apply. Note that they are descriptions, nothing to do with “mechanism”.”
No. You are playing fast and loose with your interpretations, that are NOT quotes.
As I make clear here:
“What I would agree to is that the CAUSE, ie the MECHANISM, of a motion like the MOTR could be two or even several cancelling rotations or translations. That is not an observation, measurement or description of the MOTION itlself, which is determined by only observing the motion. As you and I did for the minute hand of the clock, and the MOTL. We were both able to determine that these motions contain a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about the mechanism, or the CAUSE of the motions. And if the clock stopped, and the minute hand stopped moving, you would instantly be able to recognize that motion as NO rotation.”
“Hes still on about the minute hand! ”
Of course, because it makes abundantly clear that you know (even though reluctantly) how to observe and recognize a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about its mechanism.
And same for the MOTL. So just whining about how orbiting things must be treated differently!
No. No. No. Kinematics treats them all the same!
You act as if I making this shit up! This comes straight from Madhavi.
She makes clear that the MOTR is not a rotation, it is a curvilinear translation.
“Translation : 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.”
“and what is with your bizarre new habit of talking about movement like the MOTR, broken down into two motions, as being about “the mechanism” rather than what it isa description!?”
Well, as I showed above, Kinematics makes clear how to describe the Motion of the MOTR.
It is a curvilinear translation. There is no ambiguity that all lines in the body remain parallel with their original directions.
“Speaking of movement like the MOTR as being a rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions (so, breaking it down into two separate motions), is a description. It has nothing to do with “mechanism”, at this stage.”
No because it is not the Kinematic description of the observable motion, it is a description of the speculated CAUSE of the motion.
Just as if I am running on a treadmill. The cause of my staying put, is that I running in one direction while the treadmill is moving me in the opposite direction. But the kinematic description of my translational motion is that it is zero.
“Similarly, for the MOTL, speaking of its movement as being a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (so, breaking it down into two separate motions), is a description. It has nothing to do with “mechanism”, at this stage.”
Both descriptions make clear that it has a rotation, and we KNOW that for a fact because the lines in the body do not stay parallel to their original direction. According to Kinematics that is unambiguous.
So I am trying to discuss with you the directly observable aspects of the two animations that we should agree on, and they have nothing to do with mechanisms, or axes of rotation.
“For movement like the MOTL, you most definitely do need to know something about the mechanics behind the motion to determine whether or not the object is rotating on its own internal axis or not, which is, of course, the entire point of the discussion! You have to be able to choose between option a), and option b).”
Well, as I explained, both descriptions are valid, but the choice for science is (b) for planetary motion, for the reasons I explained above.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661512
All these years the entire point of the discussion was that you have promoted description (a) for our Moon and for planetary motion.
If as you NOW claim, we need to know something about the mechanism to decide, then you must have in mind a mechanism for planetary motion that persuades you that (a) is correct.
So what is that mechanism?
"Of course, because it makes abundantly clear that you know (even though reluctantly) how to observe and recognize a rotation, without knowing diddly squat about its mechanism…"
…if the object is not "orbiting". Lol.
"And same for the MOTL."
We don’t know that the MOTL is rotating about its own internal axis through observation, Nate. So, how exactly are we going to determine if a real object that is moving in that way is spinning, or not, without looking at the mechanics behind the motion?
"So just whining about how orbiting things must be treated differently!"
Not whining, Nate. Explaining.
"No. No. No. Kinematics treats them all the same! You act as if I making this shit up! This comes straight from Madhavi. She makes clear that the MOTR is not a rotation, it is a curvilinear translation."
Sure, that’s the b) option for the MOTR. The a) option still exists, though. Of course it does, because, as you’ve already agreed, the concept of "rotation about an external axis" exists.
Nate, it’s just as well we were able to have this chat. Because, clearly, over the last few years, you’ve completely lost the plot on this subject.
If movement of the MOTR could be definitively described in only one way, then it follows that movement of the MOTL could be definitively described in only one way. But you have already agreed that movement of the MOTL can be described in two different ways! You’re arguing with yourself.
"If as you NOW claim, we need to know something about the mechanism to decide, then you must have in mind a mechanism for planetary motion that persuades you that (a) is correct.
So what is that mechanism?"
Nate, we’re nowhere near ready to discuss that, yet. Nowhere near! Once you’re ready to accept that there are two descriptions for the MOTR, a) and b), and we’ve moved on to you understanding the whole "mechanics behind the motion" argument, and you can accept that the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis, and you agree that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames…maybe then. Maybe, you’ll be ready. You’ve got a really, really long way to go, as it stands. Fortunately, I’m very, very patient with difficult students.
Let’s try something new. Watch the CSAItruth video again. Pay attention to the movement in the first of the three experiments. You would probably describe that model moon as rotating twice on its own internal axis, per orbit, wrt an inertial reference frame, yes? And you would describe it as rotating once on its own internal axis, per orbit, wrt a rotating reference frame, right? OK…here’s the exercise:
Now look at the movement of the model moon this way. With "translation in a circle" as the "base motion" for the model moon, it would be rotating twice on its own internal axis, per "translation in a circle". With "rotation about an external axis" as the "base motion" for the model moon, it would be rotating once on its own internal axis, per "rotation about an external axis".
If you can grok that, then you’re making good progress. Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, you should be able to see that, objectively, "rotation about an external axis" is the "base motion" that the CSAItruth equipment is performing. The arm is, quite literally, rotating the model moon about an axis in the centre of the equipment.
So, in experiment one: the model moon is objectively rotating on its own internal axis, once per "rotation about an external axis".
In experiment two: the model moon is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis.
In experiment three: the model moon is objectively rotating on its own internal axis, once per "rotation about an external axis", in opposite directions.
If you can understand all that, you go to the top of the class!
“We dont know that the MOTL is rotating about its own internal axis through observation”
Nor did I claim that! My claim was that observation tells us it has rotation. Period.
When are you going to get that straight?
“‘No. No. No. Kinematics treats them all the same! You act as if I making this shit up! This comes straight from Madhavi. She makes clear that the MOTR is not a rotation, it is a curvilinear translation.’
Sure, thats the b) option for the MOTR. The a) option still exists, though. Of course it does, because, as youve already agreed, the concept of “rotation about an external axis” exists.”
Disingenuous again. Madhavi never states this description is one of two options.
If the body keeps all lines parallel to their initial values, there is only one option, the motion must be a translation.
Even Madhavi agrees that “rotation about an external axis” exists.”
But that has no relevance to the MOTR which is a translation.
Just waiting for you to come to grips with this straightforward fact.
“If movement of the MOTR could be definitively described in only one way, then it follows that movement of the MOTL could be definitively described in only one way. But you have already agreed that movement of the MOTL can be described in two different ways!”
Non sequitur. Bad at logic again.
All three of us, you and I and Madhavi, agree that MOTL has rotation. The option is only about axis of rotation, as you well know.
Whereas for the MOTR, there are no options for the location of the axis, when there is NO ROTATION.
“Nate, were nowhere near ready to discuss that, yet. Nowhere near!”
Tee hee hee. Very Clint-esque.
Clearly you have no answer. If not, then this renders your whole line of argument about “you most definitely do need to know something about the mechanics behind the motion” MOOT.
“Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, you should be able to see that, objectively, “rotation about an external axis” is the “base motion” that the CSAItruth equipment is performing. The arm is, quite literally, rotating the model moon about an axis in the centre of the equipment.”
Indeed what you call the ‘base motion’ is obviously describing the motion of THE ARM, not the motion of the model moon.
Which then is describing the CAUSE of the motion of the model moon, NOT the motion it actually has, which may be quite different (eg MOTR)
Which is just like describing the treadmill surface moving to the right as the ‘base motion’ of anyone on the treadmill, which is NOT the motion that a runner running to the left on the tradmill actually has, which may be ZERO translational velocity.
Which (the treadmill motion) is then is describing the CAUSE of the motion of the runner being zero.
So…Nate accepts that there is the "base motion", "translation in a circle". He accepts that with no rotation about an internal axis, that is movement like the MOTR. He accepts, without hesitation, that if you add rotation about an internal axis, at a rate of once per "translation in a circle", you get movement like the MOTL (and, he accepts that this is a description of the movement, nothing else).
Nate also accepts that there is the "base motion", "rotation about an external axis". He accepts that with no rotation about an internal axis, that is movement like the MOTL. But, for some bizarre reason, he cannot accept that if you add rotation about an internal axis, at a rate of once per "rotation about an external axis", in opposite directions, you get movement like the MOTR! Or rather, he can accept it, but says that it is no longer a description of the movement, but it’s something to do with CAUSE, and movement on a treadmill?
He basically has a total logical failure when it comes to movement as per the MOTR. Then he tries to lecture me about "bad logic"!
"Indeed what you call the ‘base motion’ is obviously describing the motion of THE ARM, not the motion of the model moon."
No, it’s the "base motion" of the model moon.
“SoNate accepts that there is the “base motion”, “translation in a circle”.”
Nah. I don’t use that term at all.
“He accepts that with no rotation about an internal axis, that is movement like the MOTR.”
Misrepresentation. The MOTR has no observable measurable rotation, is what I’ve said.
“He accepts, without hesitation, that if you add rotation about an internal axis, at a rate of once per “translation in a circle”, you get movement like the MOTL (and, he accepts that this is a description of the movement, nothing else).”
Yes, that is how you can get that motion. Or the converse. You can get the MOTR by adding a cancelling rotation about the bodies COM, to the MOTL, then you will get the MOTR.
Nothing else describes the MOTL? What about rotation around an external axis, as we discussed?
“Nate also accepts that there is the “base motion”, “rotation about an external axis”.”
Nah. It is simply a motion, not any sort of ‘base motion’
“He accepts that with no rotation about an internal axis, that is movement like the MOTL.”
Misleading. I would put it as ‘with no additional rotation about an internal axis’. And I know very well about the two options!
“But, for some bizarre reason, he cannot accept that if you add rotation about an internal axis, at a rate of once per “rotation about an external axis”, in opposite directions, you get movement like the MOTR!”
FALSE. I have said exactly that! Up above, and previously.
“Or rather, he can accept it, but says that it is no longer a description of the movement, but its something to do with CAUSE, and movement on a treadmill?”
Wow, weird.
I have been consistent in describing the OBSERVABLE motion of the MOTR is a translation. There is no inconsistency with that motion being caused by various possible combinations of cancelling rotations or translations.
“He basically has a total logical failure when it comes to movement as per the MOTR. Then he tries to lecture me about “bad logic”!”
By simply agreeing with Madhavi and every other textbook on Rigid Body Kinematics, in describing the MOTR motion as what it IS, as opposed to describing scenarios for CAUSES of that motion, that makes ME a total failure!
Wow, weird.
How bout you responding directly about the guy on treadmill.
“”Indeed what you call the base motion is obviously describing the motion of THE ARM, not the motion of the model moon.”
No, its the “base motion” of the model moon.”
In your opinion, not science’s, not mine.
Particularly since real moon’s have no need for arms to move them around. They are simply in motion through a vacuum on a curved path determined by gravity.
The arm is simply a convenient table-top mechanism for representing planetary motion.
"Nah. I don’t use that term at all."
Now you are just being awkward.
"Misrepresentation. The MOTR has no observable measurable rotation, is what I’ve said."
…and the MOTL has no observable, measurable "translation in a circle", as we discussed, and you got wrong, and then never conceded that you got wrong. Still waiting for you to concede that point, Nate.
"Yes, that is how you can get that motion."
The point is, that it’s the exact same principle to get movement like the MOTR. You can take "rotation about an external axis", and add rotation about an internal axis to it, and get movement like the MOTR. You can accept this sort of adding of two motions together for getting movement like the MOTL, but not for the MOTR!
"Nah. It is simply a motion, not any sort of ‘base motion’"
Still just being awkward, then.
"Misleading. I would put it as ‘with no additional rotation about an internal axis’. And I know very well about the two options!"
Well, you’d be wrong. Because the "additional" implies that there is already rotation about an internal axis occurring. Which there isn’t, for the a) description of movement like the MOTL.
"FALSE. I have said exactly that! Up above, and previously."
OK, so you can accept it, then! So what exactly are we arguing about? If you can accept that there are two descriptions for the MOTR, a) and b), then we’re done arguing about that.
"Wow, weird."
Yes, your objections are weird.
"I have been consistent in describing the OBSERVABLE motion of the MOTR is a translation. There is no inconsistency with that motion being caused by various possible combinations of cancelling rotations or translations."
Now he’s trying to wriggle out of accepting that there are two descriptions of the MOTR, a) and b), again.
"By simply agreeing with Madhavi and every other textbook on Rigid Body Kinematics, in describing the MOTR motion as what it IS, as opposed to describing scenarios for CAUSES of that motion, that makes ME a total failure!"
Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions, is a description of the movement of the MOTR. It has nothing to do with "CAUSE".
"Wow, weird."
Yes, your objections are weird.
"How bout you responding directly about the guy on treadmill."
OK…the guy on the treadmill has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re discussing. If you want to pick an analogy, pick one where the object is moving in an enclosed loop, like the MOTL or the MOTR!
"If you can understand all that, you go to the top of the class!"
So far, Nate has shown no indication that he even wants to understand any of it, so he remains at the bottom.
“”By simply agreeing with Madhavi and every other textbook on Rigid Body Kinematics, in describing the MOTR motion as what it IS, as opposed to describing scenarios for CAUSES of that motion, that makes ME a total failure!”
Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions, is a description of the movement of the MOTR. It has nothing to do with “CAUSE”.”
I think you are being weird. Because you cite Madhavi as your reference for kinematics.
And you claim to be able to recognize and measure a rotation rate, in the MOTL, in the arm, in a motor attached to and going around with the arm, in the minute hand on the clock, because all of them are objects with changing orientations!
But when a body is NOT changing its orientation, the MOTR, you suddenly are speechless in being unable to say the simple words, that it is not rotating!
That is weird.
Here’s what’s weird, Nate. Whatever it is that’s running through your head whilst you watch the CSAItruth equipment replicating movement like the MOTR.
When the "orbit motor" stops, and the model moon can be observed to be rotating on its own internal axis, what do you think has happened? Do you think that it was not rotating on its own internal axis whilst it was "orbiting", and has suddenly started rotating on its own internal axis now that it’s stopped "orbiting"!?
What goes through your head?
“OKthe guy on the treadmill has absolutely nothing to do with what were discussing. If you want to pick an analogy, pick one where the object is moving in an enclosed loop, like the MOTL or the MOTR!”
The point is that the guy has no translational velocity. He is stationary, according to kinematics. That is a description of his motion.
He has no rotation or translation.
But the cause of that is he is running to the left on a treadmill moving him to the right. Two cancelling translations.
And the mechanism (the treadmill) could be hidden from view, and that would not change our description of the motion.
You need it to involve rotation to get the point? So you really lack the imagination and ability to generalize?
How bout a guy using the MOTL as his treadmill? He is running on it at a speed that keeps him always pointing toward a specific star.
His motion will be that of one point on the MOTR.
“When the “orbit motor” stops, and the model moon can be observed to be rotating on its own internal axis, what do you think has happened?”
That something changed the motion, and now it is a different motion, a rotation.
It could be many things that caused that. For example it could be an asteroid travelling to the right that hit it tangentially at its top when in the top position of its orbit. That stopped its orbital motion and simultaneously gave it rotational motion.
But this are details of the mechanism, which is not an answer to the question, what is its new motion?
You seem interested in the details of the mechanism.
"The point is that the guy has no translational velocity. He is stationary, according to kinematics. That is a description of his motion. He has no rotation or translation. But the cause of that is he is running to the left on a treadmill moving him to the right. Two cancelling translations. And the mechanism (the treadmill) could be hidden from view, and that would not change our description of the motion."
Two cancelling translations on top of each other, Nate. Do you really not get that the two rotations for the a) description of the MOTR are about two different axes? Thus, they are not really "cancelling" at all!
Nate quotes me:
“When the “orbit motor” stops, and the model moon can be observed to be rotating on its own internal axis, what do you think has happened?”
and unbelievably says:
"That something changed the motion, and now it is a different motion, a rotation."
Erm…no, Nate. What has happened is that the "rotation about an external axis" has stopped, and you are left with the "rotation about an internal axis", which was occurring all along.
You were acting like I didn’t accept Madhavi’s description of the MOTR as being a translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis…but I do accept that. That is description b) for the MOTR. However…the concept of "rotation about an external axis" exists, and thus the a) description exists also, and you have no way out of that. Which is why I chose to remind you about the CSAItruth contraption. But, it seems your denial on that front is limitless.
The two descriptions for movement like the MOTL are:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Thus, it follows that the two descriptions for movement like the MOTR are:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
And, it also follows that the two descriptions for movement seen in the first experiment of the CSAItruth video are:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per rotation about an external axis, in the same direction.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis, twice per translation in a circle, in the same direction.
“You were acting like I didnt accept Madhavis description of the MOTR as being a translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axisbut I do accept that. That is description b) for the MOTR.”
Well then you accept this statement?
“Translation : 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.”
Because it has no ambiguity about what that motion IS. Just a translation. No rotation. No axis.
And if we try to measure its rotation by any means, Foucault pendulum, Newton bucket, etc, we will find its rotation to be ZERO.
…which can be proven wrong by direct observation (e.g. the CSAItruth demonstration).
The a) and b) descriptions are as I said.
“which can be proven wrong by direct observation (e.g. the CSAItruth demonstration).”
When a specific mechanism, a motor is turned off, that changes the motion from one thing to another thing.
Like if I stop running on the treadmill, then I get swept off the back end of the treadmill at some velocity.
My translation went from zero to 1 mile/8 minutes.
BTW, I just ran on my treadmill. And when I got distracted that almost happened!
Look if you have a motion, like that of the MOTR, then it IS a curvilinear translation. But it is fair to say that that motion can be obtained in many different ways. Ie by cancelling rotations, produced by various mechanisms.
Then if my car IS stopped at a stop sign, one can say that it is actually going East at 30 mph and West at 30 mph, or maybe N and South at 50 mph. It does get silly real fast.
Sorry, Nate, endlessly repeating yourself isn’t going to change the fact that the concept “rotation about an external axis” exists.
I could be sitting here telling you that the movement of the MOTL is objectively “rotation about an external axis”, and that yes, maybe it can also be produced by combining translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis, but that is just the CAUSE of the motion, and not a description of what the movement objectively IS, and so on…
…but I won’t, because I know that the concept “translation in a circle” exists.
The a) and b) descriptions are as I said.
Moving beyond pointlessly discussing the movement of the MOTR over and over again, do you accept the a) and b) descriptions for the movement shown in the first experiment of the CSAItruth video?
“Sorry, Nate, endlessly repeating yourself isnt going to change the fact that the concept rotation about an external axis exists.”
Sure it does, and Madhavi agrees. But that doesnt mean your claims about the MOTR follow.
You havent stated whether you accept what Madhavi clearly states says at face value:
“Well then you accept this statement?
Translation : 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.
Because it has no ambiguity about what that motion IS. Just a translation. No rotation. No axis.
Nor can you explain where this line of argument is going to help you wrt the original issues of the Moon’s orbit and planetary motion.
Planets and moons have no arms or motors like the CSA truther guy uses, yet he still tries to claim the conclusions about their motions can be generalized to the real Moon!
But in contrast, YOU are looking at the specific mechanisms such as that of the ARM and motor, and saying we need to know the mechanism in order to know what the motion IS.
But with real planets and moons you are unable to tell us how their mechanism leads to your conclusions about their motion.
“Nate, were nowhere near ready to discuss that, yet. Nowhere near!”
Clearly you have no answer.
Then this renders your whole line of argument that we need to know the mechanism to know the motion, MOOT.
Nate quotes me: “Sorry, Nate, endlessly repeating yourself isn’t going to change the fact that the concept "rotation about an external axis" exists.”
and enthusiastically, but naively, chirrups:
"Sure it does, and Madhavi agrees. But that doesn’t mean your claims about the MOTR follow."
Actually, it does, Nate. We’ll get to that, again, in a minute.
"Well then you accept this statement?
Translation : 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."
Accept it!? I may as well have written it! Sure, from that, we get to the idea of the concept, "translation in a circle [with no rotation about an internal axis]", which is one of the two descriptions for movement like the MOTR. However, "rotation about an external axis" also exists as a concept, therefore we must have two descriptions for movement like the MOTR. Here’s why:
You have two "base motions": "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle". To those "base motions", you can add "spin" (rotation about an internal axis) at varying rates, and get different resulting movements. You’ll probably deny that you do this, Nate, but in fact you already do: for movement like the MOTL, description b). There, you are adding "translation in a circle" to "spin" at a rate of once per "translation in a circle", in the same direction. Presumably, you are mentally capable of adding two motions together. That’s all you need to be able to do to understand this.
Now, let’s take a look through three movements: movement like the first experiment from the CSAItruth video (1st E), movement like the MOTL, and movement like the MOTR. Let’s go with "translation in a circle" as the "base motion":
1st E: Two "spins" per "translation in a circle". MOTL: One "spin" per "translation in a circle". MOTR: Zero "spins" per "translation in a circle".
Now, let’s go with "rotation about an external axis" as the "base motion":
1st E: One "spin" per "rotation about an external axis". MOTL: Zero "spins" per "rotation about an external axis". MOTR: ? "spins" per "rotation about an external axis".
So, for "translation in a circle" we go: 2, 1, 0.
What do you think the sequence is for "rotation about an external axis"?
You got it: 1, 0, -1.
The negative value will be "spin" in the opposite direction to the "base motion".
Of course, this principle continues all the way. So, for an object moving like the Earth in orbit around the Sun, we could say:
With "translation in a circle" as the "base motion", the Earth "spins" 366.25 times per "translation in a circle".
With "rotation about an external axis" as the "base motion", the Earth "spins" 365.25 times per "rotation about an external axis".
Who’s understanding, still? Nate? Have you kept up?
“Accept it!? I may as well have written it! Sure, from that, we get to the idea of the concept, “translation in a circle [with no rotation about an internal axis]””
But then you immediately disregard it:
“which is one of the two descriptions for movement like the MOTR.”
No. No. No! The statement that you claim to accept does NOT say it is one of two options, does it.
Nor do you provide an alternative source, like Madhavi, that agrees with you.
This is unfortunately become a standard DREMT tactic: Say you accept a definition or the laws of physics, like you did with 1LOT, then immediately turn around and refuse to apply them!
Then fail to see the contradiction in that behavior.
"But then you immediately disregard it…"
I don’t disregard it at all. "Translation in a circle" is one of the two "base motions" I’m discussing.
"No. No. No! The statement that you claim to accept does NOT say it is one of two options, does it."
It doesn’t need to, and why would it? It’s just a general statement about translation. Nor does the statement re: "rotation about an external axis" say anything about "one of two options".
Nate…can you follow the argument being made, or not? Because it very much seems like you can’t.
“You have two “base motions”: “rotation about an external axis” and “translation in a circle”. To those “base motions”, you can add “spin” (rotation about an internal axis) at varying rates, and get different resulting movements. Youll probably deny that you do this, Nate, but in fact you already do: for movement like the MOTL, description b). There, you are adding “translation in a circle” to “spin” at a rate of once per “translation in a circle”, in the same direction. Presumably, you are mentally capable of adding two motions together. Thats all you need to be able to do to understand this.”
Sure, sure, sure.
It will always require two motions, translation and rotation, to fully describe projectile motion or planetary motion in general.
But your chosen ‘base motions’ are not good choices for either planetary or projectile motions, because they will only ever apply to very SPECIAL cases: circular orbits with synchronous rotation.
I showed you before videos of various rigid bodies being tossed through a space. Tennis rackets, baseball bats, etc. They wobble and spin in erratic fashion as they fly across a room.
Then the COM is marked with fluorescent paint, and we see that the COM follows a smooth parabolic trajectory, while the body rotates smoothly around the COM.
Thus these motions, translation of the COM, and rotation around the COM, have become the most useful and preferred base motions used by physics, astronomy, and engineering for planetary motion or projectile motion or aeronautics.
“Natecan you follow the argument being made, or not? Because it very much seems like you cant.”
No Im following and rebutting your arguments. But you continue to act as if they havent been, and think that it is a given that only your arguments have any merit.
Nate writes: "Sure, sure, sure."
Then demonstrates he hasn’t understood, by writing:
"But your chosen ‘base motions’ are not good choices for either planetary or projectile motions, because they will only ever apply to very SPECIAL cases: circular orbits with synchronous rotation."
One of the two "base motions" I’ve "chosen" would have the Earth spinning 366.25 times per "base motion", and the other would have the Earth spinning 365.25 times per "base motion". Clearly, you have not followed the argument, Nate.
In any case, we’re not onto orbits, just yet. We’re still struggling to get you to understand the principle of "base motions", and that movement as per both the MOTL and the MOTR will have two different descriptions, a) and b), for each, and that this then requires looking at the mechanics behind the motion to decide between the descriptions for any real object.
“Then demonstrates he hasnt understood, by writing:”
By pointing out why your chosen ‘base motions’ are bad choices.
So naturally you dishonestly pretend that I havent made a rebuttal, and declaring that I havent ‘understood’ (translation: accepted) your repeat for the umpteenth time your declared truths about your ‘base motions’.
We are entering the silly zone of the argument.
There is no usefulness to choosing ‘base motions’ that only work for the cartoon MOTL and MOTR.
And NO your ‘base motions’ do not work well for the Earth, whose orbit is elliptical, and its only observable, measurable, rotation is around an axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to its orbit.
Thus as I noted, but you ignored, Astronomy uses translation of its COM to describe its orbit, and rotation around its COM to describe its rotation (or Spin).
And these work remarkably well for predicting the Earth’s position and orientation in the future.
No, Nate, when I write that you demonstrate that you don’t understand, I mean that you demonstrate that you don’t understand.
Do you understand this:
"Now, let’s take a look through three movements: movement like the first experiment from the CSAItruth video (1st E), movement like the MOTL, and movement like the MOTR. Let’s go with "translation in a circle" as the "base motion":
1st E: Two "spins" per "translation in a circle".
MOTL: One "spin" per "translation in a circle".
MOTR: Zero "spins" per "translation in a circle".
Now, let’s go with "rotation about an external axis" as the "base motion":
1st E: One "spin" per "rotation about an external axis".
MOTL: Zero "spins" per "rotation about an external axis".
MOTR: ? "spins" per "rotation about an external axis".
So, for "translation in a circle" we go: 2, 1, 0.
What do you think the sequence is for "rotation about an external axis"?
You got it: 1, 0, -1.
The negative value will be "spin" in the opposite direction to the "base motion"."
The reason I ask, is because you said:
"There is no usefulness to choosing ‘base motions’ that only work for the cartoon MOTL and MOTR."
When clearly I am trying to show that the principle goes beyond movement like the MOTL or the MOTR. That’s why I mentioned the movement from the first experiment of the CSAItruth video. So, that’s another way you demonstrated a lack of understanding.
"Thus as I noted, but you ignored, Astronomy uses translation of its COM to describe its orbit, and rotation around its COM to describe its rotation (or Spin)."
"Spin" is not a "base motion", Nate. As for "translation of [an object’s] CoM to describe its orbit", that’s an intelligent dodge of the entire issue. Translation of an object’s CoM, to describe its orbit, is just a way of saying that "spin" will be left to be quantified wrt an inertial reference frame. Yet, that means, automatically, that the motion "orbit without spin" is being assigned to be as per the MOTR! However, that is not what "orbit without spin" is.
Like I say, we have a long way to go before we get on to talking about orbits, and, more importantly, "orbit without spin". The "base motion" concept is a sort of warm-up to that idea, but before we get on to talking about "orbit without spin", we need to sort out the details of the motion for objects like the ball on a string. We still haven’t even got you confirming agreement on point 1) of the points 1) – 4)! Sheesh. Many "Spinners" agreed on that one years ago.
“No, Nate, when I write that you demonstrate that you dont understand, I mean that you demonstrate that you dont understand.”
Yes you said that.
But ‘understanding’ is not the problem from my side.
The problem is you are not making any new or convincing arguments that you havent already repeated countless times.
You don’t really respond to, quote, or otherwise react to at least half of what I write, Nate. So, I’m left to wonder if any of it’s actually sinking in. You claim you’re rebutting my arguments, but astute readers will have noticed that you’re seemingly ignoring at least half of it.
You don’t demonstrate any understanding. So, if you do get what I’m saying, you’re doing a good job of hiding it. I mean, I just asked you specifically if you understood a certain part of a certain comment…and there’s no response. So…do you get it, or not?
“Yet, that means, automatically, that the motion “orbit without spin” is being assigned to be as per the MOTR!”
“However, that is not what “orbit without spin” is.”
Oh? WHY IS THAT?
What is the underlying mechanism for planetary motion that compels you to conclude that?
The simplest way to understand it is that all the physical models of "orbit without spin" that the "Spinners" provide are either objectively spinning, or have nothing to represent gravity. We need to do a lot more work before you understand the "are objectively spinning" part, though.
“The simplest way to understand it is that all the physical models of “orbit without spin” that the “Spinners” provide are either objectively spinning, or have nothing to represent gravity.”
‘What the spinners provide’ is not an answer to the question that I asked.
What is the underlying mechanism for planetary motion that compels YOU to conclude what ‘Orbit without spin’ is?
The "Non-Spinners" have always had a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin". It has something to represent gravity, and is objectively not spinning.
So you cannot tell us how gravity acts in a vacuum to produce the mechanism that compels your reasoning?
"I mean, I just asked you specifically if you understood a certain part of a certain comment…and there’s no response. So…do you get it, or not?"
Oh I see. Evasion. Changing the subject.
You have no answer for what you think the mechanism is for gravity acting in vacuum to convince you that ‘orbit with spin’ must be like the MOTL.
All you can offer is discussion of the mechanisms of tabletop devices that try to mimic the motion of planets.
But it should be obvious that those devices are not actually simulating how gravity actually affects planets and moons in a vacuum. Gravity does not act like a rigid arm. Planets and moons are free to move away from or toward the central body, unlike on an arm. Gravity does not turn the orientation of bodies to align with it as the arm does. Thus planets and moons are not constrained to rotate in the orbital plane. And once they acquire rotation, rotational inertia keeps them spinning that way for millions of years.
So you change the subject by disingenuously suggesting I don’t understand your ‘base motions’.
“Do you understand this:
“Now, lets take a look through three movements: movement like the first experiment from the CSAItruth video (1st E), movement like the MOTL, and movement like the MOTR. Lets go with “translation in a circle” as the “base motion”:
1st E: Two “spins” per “translation in a circle”.
MOTL: One “spin” per “translation in a circle”.
MOTR: Zero “spins” per “translation in a circle”.
Now, lets go with “rotation about an external axis” as the “base motion”:
1st E: One “spin” per “rotation about an external axis”.
MOTL: Zero “spins” per “rotation about an external axis”.
MOTR: ? “spins” per “rotation about an external axis”.
So, for “translation in a circle” we go: 2, 1, 0.
What do you think the sequence is for “rotation about an external axis”?
You got it: 1, 0, -1.”
Yes, of course. These are your declared ‘base motions’ and resulting spins.
So what? We have discussed these 47,000 times.
Why does astronomy need to use your ‘base motions’ when they are plainly not useful for describing actual planetary motion?
You have not made a compelling case. In science, that means the idea is at a dead end.
Nate, I agreed to talk to you because you seemed desperate to communicate with me, and I specifically stated that it would be about points 1) – 4). You’re determined to go beyond the scope of those points. Presumably because then you can go, "look, you have no answers!" and declare yourself the victor. You’re free to try that, if you wish. I just thought you might be interested in understanding why the points 1) – 4) are correct.
Why do you call them "declared" base motions!? Do you not agree that the concepts "translation in a circle" and "rotation about an external axis" exist!? It’s not like I’m making anything up. Do you accept that with movement like the MOTL, you add the "base motion" "translation in a circle" to "spin", at a rate of once per "translation in a circle", in the same direction, to get option b)? How can you then deny that option a) for movement like the MOTR does not exist as a description of the movement!? It’s just adding two motions together. Same principle.
Since you agree that options a) and b) exist as descriptions of the movement of the MOTL, how do you propose to decide which one is objectively correct for a real object moving like the MOTL, if not by studying the mechanism behind the motion?
“Why do you call them “declared” base motions!?”
Because they are declared by you to be useful, but as explained many times, they are not useful for planetary motion.
You have no response to that issue, instead just stuck in aloop of repeating the talking points.
“Do you not agree that the concepts “translation in a circle” and “rotation about an external axis” exist!?
Asked and answered many times already!
“Do you accept that with movement like the MOTL, you add the “base motion” “translation in a circle” to “spin”, at a rate of once per “translation in a circle”, in the same direction, to get option b)? How can you then deny that option a) for movement like the MOTR does not exist as a description of the movement!? Its just adding two motions together. Same principle.”
I have answered this several times.
But you keep ignoring my answer:
The MOTL motion objectively, measurably contains rotation.
The MOTR motion objectively, measurably contains NO rotation.
But you want us to believe that the MOTR motion DOES somehow contain rotation anyway. It’s just that it gets cancelled out.
Sure, but one can imagine ANY NUMBER of cancelling motions are involved in creating the observable motion, which is NO rotation.
For what purpose?
As I showed you, in general, planetary and projectile motions ARE a combination of translation and rotation.
So it serves a purpose to describe the MOTL as such a combination, which works for the MOTL. And then the description is universally applicable to all bodies moving through space.
Your so-called ‘base motions’ are not universally applicable.
Do you have a response to this criticism?
"Because they are declared by you to be useful, but as explained many times, they are not useful for planetary motion."
We’re not onto planetary motion, yet. For that, we need "orbit without spin". We’re not there yet, though. You keep jumping the gun!
"Asked and answered many times already!"
OK, so, yes, you agree that the concepts exist. Thus, it’s a mystery as to why you object to the "base motion" term. Other than just to be awkward. Nate quotes me:
“Do you accept that with movement like the MOTL, you add the “base motion” “translation in a circle” to “spin”, at a rate of once per “translation in a circle”, in the same direction, to get option b)? How can you then deny that option a) for movement like the MOTR does not exist as a description of the movement!? Its just adding two motions together. Same principle.”
and says:
"I have answered this several times.
But you keep ignoring my answer:
The MOTL motion objectively, measurably contains rotation.
The MOTR motion objectively, measurably contains NO rotation.
But you want us to believe that the MOTR motion DOES somehow contain rotation anyway. It’s just that it gets cancelled out."
Simply put, that’s not an answer to the questions I asked. And, you’re wrong. And, I’ve explained why. And, you’ve had no real answer to that explanation. You just keep repeating your talking points.
"As I showed you, in general, planetary and projectile motions ARE a combination of translation and rotation. So it serves a purpose to describe the MOTL as such a combination, which works for the MOTL. And then the description is universally applicable to all bodies moving through space. Your so-called ‘base motions’ are not universally applicable. Do you have a response to this criticism?"
It’s not a criticism of what I’m talking about, because we’re not onto "planetary and projectile motions", yet. That’s my response. All I’ll say is, if "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle" are not universally applicable to all bodies moving in a circle, then I guess I don’t know what is! You do come out with some bizarre nonsense, Nate.
…and again:
Since you agree that options a) and b) exist as descriptions of the movement of the MOTL, how do you propose to decide which one is objectively correct for a real object moving like the MOTL, if not by studying the mechanism behind the motion?
“Since you agree that options a) and b) exist as descriptions of the movement of the MOTL, how do you propose to decide which one is objectively correct for a real object moving like the MOTL, if not by studying the mechanism behind the motion?”
Both are valid representations of the motion. Both make predictions for the future position and orientation of the model moon. That is all we can hope for in science.
But as I explained, several times now, only one option is universally applicable to planetary and projectile motion of bodies through space. Sorry, you may not like it, but THAT is the REASON for science to choose to use one representation over the other.
And I don’t know why I am being censored from talking about planetary motion, while you are not:
“Of course, this principle continues all the way. So, for an object moving like the Earth in orbit around the Sun, we could say:
With “translation in a circle” as the “base motion”, the Earth “spins” 366.25 times per “translation in a circle”.
With “rotation about an external axis” as the “base motion”, the Earth “spins” 365.25 times per “rotation about an external axis”
And you keep bring up the video which is specifically discussing the orbit of the Moon.
"Both are valid representations of the motion. Both make predictions for the future position and orientation of the model moon. That is all we can hope for in science."
Well, that’s another good confirmation that you agree with my point 2). However, I think science can do better than not knowing the answer as to whether a ball on a string is objectively rotating on its own internal axis or not. I think if we just look at the mechanism behind the motion, we can see that the ball is being swung around a central axis that is external to the ball. So, the "base motion" is chosen for us: it’s "rotation about an external axis". Which means, of course that the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis.
Point 1).
… as objectively viewed by the twirler of the ball on string.
Go away, Ball4.
Get the physics right, DREMT. It’s not that difficult to become more accomplished than DREMT is presently in kinematics of rigid bodies.
Go away, Ball4. You are not welcome in this discussion.
It’s already obvious getting the physics correct is not welcome by DREMT who needs way more due diligence in the field of rigid body kinematics.
We’ve gone beyond kinematics, Ball4. That’s the point.
“However, I think science can do better than not knowing the answer as to whether a ball on a string is objectively rotating on its own internal axis or not. I think if we just look at the mechanism behind the motion, we can see that the ball is being swung around a central axis that is external to the ball. So, the “base motion” is chosen for us: its “rotation about an external axis”. Which means, of course that the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis.”
Well, again, the BOS is objectively, measurably rotating. The placement of the axis of rotation at the point the string is fixed makes sense. But obviously putting it at the COM of the ball still works and gives the same predicted motion.
But the BOS, in any case, is not equivalent to a planet in orbit, which as explained has freedom of motion that the BOS does not have.
Galileo observed projectile motion. His description of projectile motion like cannon-balls was purely TRANSLATION. Orientation and rotation were independent of this motion.
Kepler observed the elliptical orbits of the planets. Most planets were simply observed to be point-like objects. Thus his model of orbital motion was purely TRANSLATION.
Newton accounted for Keplerian orbits with his laws of physics. His orbit equation, when solved, gives a pure TRANSLATION of the orbiting body, with no information about orientation or rotation.
So from the point of view of physics, the ‘base motion’ for projectiles and bodies in orbit is a TRANSLATION.
And to these ‘base motions’, we can simply add a spin around any axis through the body to produce the full orbital motion of planets.
Astronomy has found this approach useful.
If the ‘base motion’ of an orbit is ‘rotation around an external axis’ then we cannot, as you claimed, simply add various amounts pf SPIN to this ‘base motion’ to model the actual motion of planets, including the Earth and Moon.
We would have to add both spin and additional translational motion to your ‘base motion’ to satisfactorily model either the Earth’s or the Moon’s motion.
And the extra translation and spin that would need to be added to turn a ‘rotation around an external axis’ into an elliptical orbit, with its varying speeds will NOT be SIMPLE or convenient. It would be a real pain in the ass.
Naturally Astronomy would not find this approach useful.
DREMT needs to eliminate his faulty kinematics before going on, so DREMT should study up & master field of kinematics of rigid bodies first to correctly understand all motion is relative.
Ball4…I will tolerate three more comments on this thread from commenters other than Nate. After that time, I will close this thread for comments. That would mean that you were depriving Nate of his one opportunity to speak to me, that he might ever have. He was desperate to speak to me, so don’t take that away from him.
"Well, again, the BOS is objectively, measurably rotating. The placement of the axis of rotation at the point the string is fixed makes sense. But obviously putting it at the COM of the ball still works and gives the same predicted motion."
You can’t just merrily place axes of rotation wherever you see fit, Nate. However, let’s say we "put it at the CoM of the ball". That would automatically mean the "base motion" would have to be "translation in a circle" rather than "rotation about an external axis". The problem with that is, "translation in a circle" is not what is physically occurring. It’s not like with Tim’s toy horse on the XY plotter. Physically, the ball is being swung around a central, external axis. Thus, "rotation about an external axis" is chosen for us. The base motion cannot be "translation in a circle".
"…a pure TRANSLATION of the orbiting body, with no information about orientation or rotation".
"Translation" does give information about orientation…since a translating body will remain fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. That’s part of the way "translation" is defined.
A translating body does NOT have to remain fixed in its orientation wrt to an inertial frame (ref. Madhavi 2.0, 1., Fig. 1) which shows DREMT has not yet mastered rigid body kinematics which must be accomplished by DREMT before moving beyond that field.
That figure shows me to be correct, Ball4. Very funny.
You have two comments left, before you close this thread down for discussion, permanently, ruining Nate’s opportunity to finally talk to me for the first time in years.
How selfish will Ball4 be? Let’s wait and see…
The Madhavi figure shows a translating body that doesn’t remain fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame so DREMT 12:53 pm is humorously wrong again as well as at 8:12 am.
DREMT’s comments still fall short of showing DREMT has accomplished mastery of rigid body kinematics so it is useless for anyone to move on to a higher physics level discussion in this field with DREMT. However, with some diligent work even DREMT can accomplish additional understanding in the field required to debate better informed, more critical commenters.
"The Madhavi figure shows a translating body that doesn’t remain fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame so DREMT 12:53 pm is humorously wrong again as well as at 8:12 am."
False, Ball4. I have the figure open in another tab, switching over to it I can see that at the start of Section 2.0, "Types of Motion", Figure 1 shows rectilinear translation (first of the three diagrams, to the left), curvilinear translation (second, or middle diagram), and rotation about a fixed axis (third, to the right). The translation diagrams clearly show the body remaining fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame.
Ball4 has been very selfish indeed. One more comment from him, and we’re closing the thread down for discussion altogether!
Madhavi shows DREMT 1:24 pm is wrong again! The rotation about a fixed axis on a straight line unchanging in direction (third, to the right) is pure translation & the diagram clearly shows the body changing in its orientation (spinning on its own internal axis) wrt an inertial reference frame.
Nate already defeated every comment DREMT made in this entire sub-thread but the thread won’t necessarily close down as DREMT objectively enjoys being repeatedly defeated by Nate, Madhavi et. al. commenters.
Ball4 loses it completely, saying that rotation is translation!
Selfishly, he closes the thread. Sorry, Nate, but I’m a man of my word. You had an opportunity to talk to me, finally, but interfering you-know-whats have ruined it. Don’t be mad at me, be mad at Ball4.
#1
Regrettably, this thread is now closed for comments. This message will be repeated, once per day, until such time as there are no further responses on the thread. No baiting, however desperate, will be responded to.
Correction for layman DREMT: Madhavi shows rotation about an internal axis is “said to be a translation” of the object when any straight line inside the body (such as the spin axis shown) keeps the same direction during the motion wrt an inertial frame.
“You cant just merrily place axes of rotation wherever you see fit, Nate.”
Sure you can. If the predicted motion is the same, why not?
“However, lets say we “put it at the CoM of the ball”. That would automatically mean the “base motion” would have to be “translation in a circle” rather than “rotation about an external axis”. The problem with that is, “translation in a circle” is not what is physically occurring.”
Nah. See above. We need to predict the motion. We don’t need to know what the ‘base motion’ is, which is a vague, non-science term that only you are concerned about.
“a pure TRANSLATION of the orbiting body, with no information about orientation or rotation”.
Unless rotation is observable and specified.
For Kepler’s orbits, the rotation of point-like planets was not observable, so left unspecified. His model of these bodies position vs time was a model of translation and was sufficient.
And Newton’s theory could solve for the body’s position vs time, which means thee position of the COM, and agreed with Kepler’s model. And his cannonball’s motion is a pure translation.
If rotation is observable, then we describe the motion as a sum of translation plus rotation.
“Translation” does give information about orientationsince a translating body will remain fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. Thats part of the way “translation” is defined.”
Sure. As noted, the full description of a planet’s motion will be a translation plus rotation.
Nate pretends not to have read what happened.
#2
Regrettably, this thread is now closed for comments. This message will be repeated, once per day, until such time as there are no further responses on the thread. No baiting, however desperate, will be responded to.
Sure, grab any silly excuse, when you have no good answers.
Long enough, in any case.
Now, Nate, that is not an honest spin to try to put on the discussion.
#3
Regrettably, this thread is now closed for comments. This message will be repeated, once per day, until such time as there are no further responses on the thread. No baiting, however desperate, will be responded to.
Folkerts muffs another one: “And a ball on a string does that about an axis through the center of the ball. The MOTL does that about its center.”
Wrong Folkerts. You STILL don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”. The ball is NOT spinning on its axis. It is orbiting.
Use an orange. Put a mark on one side, and push a pencil vertically through the center. Now orbit the orange around the center of a table, keeping the mark always facing the center. Notice the axis travels with the orange. It is NOT spinning. Nothing is spinning.
You have a history of muffing things. You seen to be quite “mighty” at it….
> Now orbit the orange
Wrong, Puffman. You STILL do not understand the difference between “rotating” and “orbiting.”
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Pole dance experiment?
Oh wow, I did miss a lot didn’t I?
“Now orbit the orange around the center of a table, keeping the mark always facing the center. ”
You still don’t understand these are two separate concepts. The “orbit” is simply the motion the center follows. The orbit does not fix the orientation of the orange. The proper analogy for gravity pulling an object in an orbit would be your hand holding frictionless axle.
As for rotation, if the mark on the orange always faces north, then the orange is NOT spinning. It the mark changes orientation, then the orange IS spinning. Simple as that. This applies to a stationary orange or an orange moving in a straight line or an orange moving around an octagon or moving around an ellipse. Any device for measuring rotation that is placed at the oranges axis will record a rotation.
Stirring a pot is a better analogy. the spoon ‘orbits’ around the pot, but neither me nor my hand nor the spoon rotates.
“The orbit does not fix the orientation of the orange.”
Nobody is saying an orbit “fixes” the orientation of the object, Tim. An object can obviously still spin if it is orbiting, which will adjust the orientation of the object accordingly.
What is being argued is that “orbit without spin” (or, simply “orbital motion”) is movement like the MOTL, rather than the MOTR.
What is your physical model for “orbit without spin” (“orbital motion”), Tim? It needs to move as per the MOTR, have something to represent gravity, and objectively not be spinning.
Are various individuals all using the same definition of the word “orientation”?
Ah, thank God. A parody troll is here. That will help.
[PUFFMAN] Now orbit the orange around the center of a table, keeping the mark always facing the center.
[TIM] The orbit does not fix the orientation of the orange.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Nobody is saying an orbit fixes the orientation of the object
More than five years like that.
I try to clarify, Little Willy tries to return things to a more confused state.
As he has done for, what, three years now?
Graham D. Warner tried to clarify “keeping the mark always facing the center.”
It means “nobody wants the mark to be fixed.”
Graham D. Warner is pure genius.
False summaries are not constructive, Little Willy.
“What is your physical model for “orbit without spin” … ”
There are so many — that have already been mentioned. A physical model for “orbit” would be anything that moves in a roundish repeating pattern. “Without spin” would be anything that keeps its same orientation relative to the surroundings.
So the spoon stirring the pot is one. The X-y plotter is another. A MGR horse on a frictionless pole is yet another. In all of these cases, the object is not spinning BEFORE starting to orbit, and is still not rotating AFTER starting to orbit. All the objects are “objectively not spinning”.
“Nobody is saying an orbit “fixes” the orientation of the object…”
How about ‘The orbit does not determine a preferred orientation of the orange.’ “Orbit” does not say anything about the ‘dot on the orange’ or the ‘noses of the MGR horse’.
You clearly view “orbit” as determining a preferred orientation with one side of the orange facing inward, measuring rotation of the orange relative to the rotating string. Scientists view “orbit” as merely the motion of the CoM, measuring rotation relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
HINT: only one of these correctly describes the motion of an object in an elliptical orbit.
Folkerts, you muffed it again: “So the spoon stirring the pot is one. The X-y plotter is another. A MGR horse on a frictionless pole is yet another.”
None of those work for “orbiting without spin”. The first two are mechanical motions that don’t replicate gravity. The “frictionless axle” has already been debunked numerous times. The horse is spinning on the axle!
You don’t understand ANY of this. Like the rest of your cult, you just throw crap at the wall. Here’s the cult history of the failed effort to pervert science:
Sidereal/Synodic
‘I built satellites’
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idi0t) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards
Your cult obviously hates science and reality.
“that dont replicate gravity…” says the man whose only model is a string. And who still can’t discuss elliptical orbits.
WRONG again Folkerts.
The string is a simple and straight-forward model of gravity. You could complicate it by having a string from every atom of the center point to every atom of the ball. Same result. An orbiting object without spin always has one side facing the inside of the orbit. It’s the same for elliptical orbits.
Here’s an even more complex explanation. Get an adult to explain it to you:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Circular_motion_vs_rotation.svg
What will you throw at the wall next?
Ah, I see that Clint R has replied to Tim with exactly what I would have said to him. So, that’s all in hand.
> Its the same for elliptical orbits.
Not really, Puffman, unless by “elliptical” you mean “circular.”
Something about isometry seems to escape you.
Yeah DREMT, they’ve got NOTHING. They lost this “debate” over a year ago. They just keep throwing crap against the wall.
I’ll add Folkerts’ “stirring a pot” to the long list.
“An orbiting object without spin always has one side facing the inside of the orbit. Its the same for elliptical orbits.”
No, it is not “the same”. “Facing the inside of the orbit” like a car driving around an elliptical track produces the WRONG libration. The physical world refutes your model.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
The model does NOT involve libration. It is NOT a model of actual Moon. This has been explained to you numerous times. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You have to have some basic awareness of science and reality for that.
Since libration involves viewing angles, it would be possible to replicate Moon’s exact orbit. Or you could just observe Moon, as it orbits without spinning.
What will you try next?
“The model does NOT involve libration”
Your model can’t explain libration.
“It is NOT a model of actual Moon.”
You model is for perfectly circular motion only.
Your model is at best an alternate definition of “orbit without spin” that only works for rigid circular motion. In that limited set of circumstances it works almost as well as the standard definitions.
I read above, not surprised at all:
” Misquoting Newton ”
That is the very best of all.
The lunar spin deniers – from Robertson till the Hunter boy – themselves intentionally misquoted Newton, at first by trying to tell us that Newton meant ‘revolves’ as ‘rotates’ for the Sun and its planets, but ‘orbits’ for the Moon.
And that… in one and the same sentence.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. It demonstrates that the same side of the orbiting object always faces the inside of its orbit, with no spin. It also works for an elliptical orbit, as demonstrated by a race car on an oval track.
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
What will you try next?
Ah, I see that Mighty Tim has replied to Puffman with exactly what I told him.
All good.
Mister Dre,
Thanks for letting us know another example of how you use words without knowing their actual definition.
Nothing I have ever written here or anywhere else fits whatsoever the definition of the word “parody’.
So add that one to “orbit” and “rotate” on your list of words you must learn before any conversation with you has any point whatsoever.
Yes, I got that wrong. Satire, then, not parody.
“as demonstrated by a race car on an oval track.”
That does give libration. But it doesn’t give accurate libration. So your model fails the ‘physical reality’ test.
“So add that one to “orbit” and “rotate” on your list of words you must learn before any conversation with you has any point whatsoever.”
Happy with the dictionary definitions of “orbit” and “rotate”. The fact is, the axis of rotation need not go through the body of the object that is rotating. Once you learn that, Nicholas, you should learn that a small chalk circle drawn on the top, towards the edge, of a rotating merry-go-round (MGR) platform is not rotating on its own internal axis, it is instead rotating about an axis located in the centre of the MGR.
Nicholas,
I suggest that you pick this one:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Types_of_orbits
Gravity is an important concept to remind Moon Dragon cranks.
Speaking of which, ask Graham D. Warner about torques. Should be fun.
Yep, no problem with that definition.
And yes, gravity is an important concept. That’s why I keep requesting that the “Spinners’” physical model of “orbit without spin” have something to represent it. They’ve produced no viable physical model so far, and thus lose the debate.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
This one is quite remarkable. Graham D. Warner *insists* that Team Science does the work for something it there never was any utility. About a thing without which Moon Dragon cranks have no leg to stand on.
The level of infelicity surpasses their PSTering.
You don’t understand why the "Spinners" not being able to provide a viable physical model of "orbit without spin" settles the moon debate, do you? Weird, because I pretty much went through it, step by step, during the course of the comments under this article.
“You dont understand why the “Spinners” not being able to provide a viable physical model of “orbit without spin” settles the moon debate, do you? ”
No. You can’t be both a contestant, and judge.
You guys have moved goal posts in deciding what qualifies as an acceptable ‘physical model’.
For example, the horse on the frictionless MGR on a bearing is a physical model of the MOTR.
You guys whine that it involves a rotation. So what?
The rotation is a simply a convenient means of getting the COM of the horse to move in circular path. But there are plenty of other ways to get the horse to move in a circular path. Such as the x-y plotter.
In fact the motion can be achieved by tow vibrators oscillating a platform in two perpendicular directions at once.
Gravity is simply providing a centripetal force, which in this instance is provided by the MGR platform. No differnt than the string for the BOS.
Again, none of these Earthbound devices are perfect at mimicking gravity acting in a vacuum on a planet.
So I don’t see the point in this focus on the deficiencies of these various devices.
Nate appears to be responding on the wrong thread. If he’s addressing his comment to me, he will need to post it on the thread where I’m reading/responding to his comments.
Oh the games that the kids will play..
He’s responded again. If it’s to me, he needs to remember that I specifically made clear it was a one thread deal. If he’s as desperate to talk to me as it always comes across from the number of times I see his name appear in my discussions, then he knows where to do that.
> You dont understand
Graham D. Warner always never really shies away from gaslighting.
If only a little.
The concept of “a little gaslighting” is independent from the concept of littleness, for it does not matter if it’s a little or a lot.
Little Willy is always at his funniest when he thinks he’s being clever. Top clowning.
Graham D. Warner is not interested by the concept of clowning.
What matters is the concept of top clowning.
Not that the concept of top clowning depends upon any kind of topness, mind you.
Top clowning is top clowning, whatever the topness of the clowning.
Graham D. Warner is not interested by the concept of clowning. What matters is the concept of top clowning. Not that the concept of top clowning depends upon any kind of top-ness, mind you. Top clowning is top clowning, whatever the top-ness of the clowning.
As Little Willy goes on, his comparisons bear less and less resemblance to the situation he’s trying to mock. Not that they were anywhere near it in the first place. That all adds to the entertainment factor.
Graham D. Warner just can’t wrap his mind around the fact that an “absence” of spin is far from amounting to an indifference regarding a specific (spin) angular momentum a celestial body has.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660361
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660363
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660368
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660374
Yes, that was your first misrepresentation. If you cannot honestly represent your opponents argument, then rational debate is over. Hence, I put you on “ignore/automatic PST” soon after.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660242
DREMT: “Happy with the dictionary definitions of … rotate.”
to turn about an axis or a center : REVOLVE
especially : to move in such a way that all particles follow circles with a common angular velocity about a common axis
Merriam- Webster
To turn around on an axis or center.
dictionary.com
To turn around on an axis or center.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Select an “axis” that is through the center of the ball or the center of the moon or the center of the MGR horse. All parts of a ball/moon/horse move in a circle around that axis.
By the dictionary definition, the ball/moon/horse are rotating around their center.
DREMT: Happy with the dictionary definitions of orbit … .
the curved path through which objects in space move around a planet or star
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
the curved path through which objects in space move around a planet or star
dictionary.com
An orbit is the curved path in space that is followed by an object going round and round a planet, moon, or star.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/
The definition is a path. Nothing about spin. So it is orbiting if it fallows a path. Once that is determined, then a second, separate, independent determination must be made to know if the object is rotating. [See previous ‘dictionary defintions’ of rotating.
[Also, all of these talk about something like “around a planet” and/or “in space” so the ball-on-string and MGR horse and even the computer-animated moons don’t “orbit”.]
Mister Dre,
Do you know why the preferred location of rocket launches to Earth Orbit and beyond are close as possible to the Equator?
Tim, re your first comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660134
re your second comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660358
Tim,
“because the MOTL is more than a path through space. To counter this, I pointed out that the “Spinner” concept of “orbit without spin”, the MOTR, is also “more than a path through space” Do you understand?”
FYI my response to this DREMT comment to me (his second link above),
was this:
The MOTR, because it as in orbit, and has NO absolute rotation:
“It has no additional motion, no additional rotation. It is only translating along the path.
The word additional is physically appropriate, because it is an orbital motion that has the MINIMUM kinetic energy, and the minimum angular momentum.”
Silence from the Timster, again.
Graham D. Warner gets precious once again.
“Yes, I got that wrong. Satire, then, not parody.”
I would have just said, “Lying”, since I did not actually go to the Moon. Maybe “Tall tale”.
Or maybe I just made up a story, but in that story, I described exactly what I would have seen if I really did do what I said.
Even you said so, when you conceded that is what one would see if they did go to the north pole of the Moon.
And in my story, I imagined what I would have to believe to make sense of what I was observing, if I insisted on the notion that the Moon does not rotate. For that to be true, I would have to invent a model of the Universe in which the entire Universe is rotating around the Moon once per sidereal month, and that the axis of that Universe’s rotation just happened to pass through the center of the Moon, of all places.
Will one of the "Spinners" tell Nicholas why he’s wrong? He won’t listen to me.
Bindidon says:
”The lunar spin deniers from Robertson till the Hunter boy themselves intentionally misquoted Newton, at first by trying to tell us that Newton meant revolves as rotates for the Sun and its planets, but orbits for the Moon.”
nate
is the one arguing that the lack of tidal locked planets in our solar system is proof of newton’s claim that if big enough and distant enough you ”can consider” planets are point masses translating in an orbit. i simply pointed out that that doesn’t apply to tidal locked moon’s which are obviously tidal locked.
further: ”can consider” falls far short of ”is”.
and even further: 9 planets is hardly a decent statistical sample size considering now many stars are likely to have planets.
[NATE] To suggest that spin rate is part of the Orbit
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] …which nobody is doing…
[MOON DRAGON CRANKS, PASSIM] “orbit without spin” is motion…
“Passim” here means more than a hundred times on this page…
Yes, "orbit without spin" is motion…motion completely separate from the consideration of spin rate.
In other words, you can have "orbit without spin" be like the MOTL, and have an object spinning at any rate in combination with that motion.
Or, you can have "orbit without spin" be like the MOTR, and have an object spinning at any rate in combination with that motion.
… all depending on the location of the observer.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
“Without” does not mean “independently of.” In this case, it means “zero.” Just like stated in his pet GIF.
Well no, Ball4, that doesn’t apply. Obviously.
… the MOTL and MOTR are spinning on own axis (see all faces) or not spinning on own axis (see same face) depending on location of observer.
…but that’s not the concept being discussed, Ball4.
The idea is that the MOTL is "orbit without spin" for the "Non-Spinners", and the MOTR is "orbit without spin" for the "Spinners".
"Spin" is then separate from that motion, for each group.
Why is that so difficult to understand!?
It’s not hard to understand. The MOTL and MOTR are spinning on own axis (see all faces) or not spinning on own axis (see same face) depending on location of each observer from either group.
If it’s not hard to understand, why do you write comments demonstrating that you don’t understand it?
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] “orbit without spin” is motionmotion completely separate from the consideration of spin rate.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] The idea is that the MOTL is “orbit without spin” for the “Non-Spinners”, and the MOTR is “orbit without spin” for the “Spinners”.
I don’t, that’s why; since I do understand it’s not difficult at all: All motion is relative.
You do write comments demonstrating you don’t understand. For instance, you’re still talking about reference frames when they don’t apply to what I’m saying. You can talk about reference frames when they do apply, if you want.
> youre still talking about reference frames when they dont apply to what Im saying.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
“Orbit without spin” is either like the MOTL or the MOTR. The MOTL and the MOTR are absolute motions. Again:
“The motion of the MOTL/MOTR is really what is “absolute”…in that they are moving in an enclosed loop, whilst maintaining a certain orientation as they do so. There is really nothing that is moving in this way that can be “relative” to anything else. The difference between the MOTL and the MOTR is also “absolute“.”
So, reference frames are irrelevant to the point I’m making.
Either the expression “Orbit without spin” refers to a motion completely separate from the consideration of spin rate, or Graham D. Warner can use it to analyze his pet GIF.
Can’t be both.
4:30pm: Writing the MOTL and the MOTR are absolute motions is known to be incorrect in modern day. There is NO absolute motion but there is inertial motion in real space. Whether each MOTL or MOTR is spinning (all faces seen) or not spinning (same face seen) depends on location of observation for each.
It is inertial motion that does not depend on location of observation.
“Can’t be both.”
Step One: Pure Denial.
“Writing the MOTL and the MOTR are absolute motions is known to be incorrect in modern day.”
I don’t know how else to express it. Nothing else will get you towards understanding what I’m trying to say.
“Whether each MOTL or MOTR is spinning (all faces seen) or not spinning (same face seen) depends on location of observation for each.”
You see all faces of the chalk circle located outside the MGR and yet it is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis (spinning), it is instead rotating about an axis in the centre of the MGR. The rotation about an axis in the centre of the MGR accounts for all 360 degrees of the change in orientation of the chalk circle witnessed by the observer located outside the MGR, leaving none to be due to rotation about an axis internal to the chalk circle.
Looks like Graham D. Warner missed a few steps before “can’t be both.”
Little Willy’s denial continues, as Ball4 concedes through silence.
Graham D. Warner still struggles to understand why his concept of orbit without spin fails to make orbit and spin independent.
This is how it makes orbit and spin independent:
“In other words, you can have "orbit without spin" be like the MOTL, and have an object spinning at any rate in combination with that motion.
Or, you can have "orbit without spin" be like the MOTR, and have an object spinning at any rate in combination with that motion.”
Your denial and/or failure to understand is your own problem.
And so Graham D. Warner chooses to redefine independence.
Did he have any other choice?
No, I’m not redefining "independence". An object can "spin" independently of its "orbital motion" (or, "orbit without spin" motion).
DREMT 9:46 pm could express it correctly: you do see all faces of the chalk circle when observed located stationary outside the MGR so the chalk circle is objectively rotating on its own internal axis r (spinning), as observed from that location, while at the same time it is also rotating about an axis R from the centre of the MGR.
When observed located on the mgr, the chalk circle is seen not spinning on its own r axis as only one face is observed from that location while the mgr is spinning on R.
DREMT’s no mention of r, R, or observer location are causing DREMT to be objectively wrong. An object can be seen not spinning on r (one face seen) and spinning on R (all faces seen) from different observer locations at the same time since all motion is relative.
Graham D Warner indeed redefines independence.
When we say that orbit is independent from spin, we usually mean that the concept of orbit is not determined by the concept of spin.
*Whatever* the spin of a celestial object, its orbit is its orbit.
How could this be true of an orbit *without* spin?
Physics question for DREMT: what is the inertial angular momentum of the chalk circle with radius r on a spinning oak mgr 1″ thick of radius R as observed from an ECI. Make some reasonable assumptions as required for mass of chalk circle (ignore the mass of the chalk).
NB: don’t forget given an ECI the radius of Earth R’ will also be in DREMT’s calculation.
You see all faces of the chalk circle located outside the MGR and yet it is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis (spinning), it is instead rotating about an axis in the centre of the MGR. The rotation about an axis in the centre of the MGR accounts for all 360 degrees of the change in orientation of the chalk circle witnessed by the observer located outside the MGR, leaving none to be due to rotation about an axis internal to the chalk circle.
"*Whatever* the spin of a celestial object, its orbit is its orbit.
How could this be true of an orbit *without* spin?"
Its "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin" motion) is its "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin" motion), whatever the spin of a celestial object. The two motions are separate and independent. If the celestial object was not spinning, you would just be left with the "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin" motion). If the celestial object is spinning, you have the "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin" motion) plus the "spin" motion combined.
> Its “orbital motion” (or “orbit without spin” motion) is its “orbital motion” (or “orbit without spin” motion), whatever the spin of a celestial object.
Let’s shorten:
“orbit without spin” motion is its orbit without spin, whatever the spin of a celestial object.
Graham D. Warner is a freaking genius.
Thanks, but I don’t think you need to be a genius to be able to understand what I’m saying. You just need to be of average intelligence or above.
Graham D. Warner will always ends up gaslighting.
Let’s emphasize:
“orbit without spin” motion is its orbit without spin, whatever the spin of a celestial object.
Without spin is without spin, whatever the spin.
True genius.
Let’s correct Little Willy’s unauthorised editing of my comment:
Its "orbit without spin" motion is its "orbit without spin" motion, whatever the spin of a celestial object.
Two separate and independent motions:
1) "Orbital motion" (or, "orbit without spin").
2) "Spin".
“You see all faces of the chalk circle located outside the MGR and yet it is objectively not rotating”
No, only in the incorrect DREMT dream world can a not rotating object show all faces to the observer – witness our Moon observed from Earth; that motion cannot be objectively shown physically.
And physics layman DREMT has little clue about how to solve the physics problem, no surprise.
Yes two separate independent motions 1) rotating on R, 2) spinning on r, DREMT does get that physically correct.
Let’s apply Graham D. Warner’s ontology:
A “colorless banana” is colorless, whatever the color of the banana.
Deal with the entire argument, or not at all, Ball4:
"You see all faces of the chalk circle located outside the MGR and yet it is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis (spinning), it is instead rotating about an axis in the centre of the MGR. The rotation about an axis in the centre of the MGR accounts for all 360 degrees of the change in orientation of the chalk circle witnessed by the observer located outside the MGR, leaving none to be due to rotation about an axis internal to the chalk circle."
Any more misrepresentations will get you on the "ignore/automatic PST" list for this sub-thread, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner tries to portray once again as the spineless Toastmaster of my threads.
And we all know that the concept of “spineless toastmaster” is independent from any spine at all!
You were warned, Little Willy. You’re on "ignore/automatic PST" from now on, on this sub-thread.
It should be obvious to everyone that Graham D. Warner is simply playing dumb. If that’s not enough, let’s add what he just wrote elsewhere:
> it’s just that “spin” would be quantified that way.
After five years of various dragon crankery, has he finally stumble upon quantification?
Come what it may, the concept of dragon crankery is independent from any kind of crankery, including no crankery at all!
Crickets from Ball4. When challenged to actually respond to an argument, instead of just re-writing it – adding what he wants to hear and leaving out what he doesn’t – Ball4 usually disappears.
Graham D. Warner isn’t always an insufferable twat, but when he isn’t, it doesn’t matter: his non-insufferableness is independent from his twattitude.
Difference between body (any body) in orbit with no spin, and moon in orbit with spin (of any amount): With no spin, you can walk all around the whole body to every single location, and you will not any place in the sky where one star is staying in place and everything in the entire universe is spinning around that star, while in the second case, when you walk all over the body, you will find two places where looking straight up you see a star that stays in one place 9or nearly so), and everything in the universe appears to spin around that star in concentric circles.
If you decide that “no spin” means that the object you are in orbit around stays in one place, and you can ignore that the whole rest of the Universe is whirling all around you, you are thinking like the people who persecuted Galileo. And when you try to construct a physical model of the solar system to explain all the motions of all the objects in the sky, you get a series of wheels within wheels and the model will never ever work properly to predict where things will be. Ever.
Period.
On the moon, when you walk all over the body, you will find two places where looking straight up you see a star that stays in one place (or nearly so), and everything in the universe appears to spin around that star in concentric circles.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
It is due to its “orbital motion”.
No, DREMT 1:22 am confuses r & R again making no distinction, since the lunar orbit on R is independent from the lunar spin on r which causes everything in the universe appear to spin around that star in concentric circles. The lunar orbit around Earth on R causes a different apparent motion of that star.
Correctly deconfusing DREMTs 9:54 am writing by adding specifics, a stationary observer sees all faces of the chalk circle when located outside the MGR and yet chalk circle is objectively not rotating on r its own internal axis (i.e. not spinning) wrt to the mgr; chalk circle is also translating in a circle on an axis R from the centre of the MGR. The chalk circle rotation about an axis R from the centre of the MGR forces all 360 degrees of the change in orientation on r of the chalk circle witnessed by the observer located outside the MGR, leaving none wrt the mgr to be due to rotation about an axis r internal to the chalk circle since chalk circle is fixed to the mgr.
Ball4 progresses slightly, beginning to learn to actually describe motions. He’s going with option b) for the chalk circle:
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
That’s the wrong option, since the MGR is objectively rotating, but he’s getting there.
… chalk circle: b) Translation in a circle on R with forced rotation about internal axis on r as all sides of chalk circle seen when observed by the stationary observer outside the mgr.
… since MGR is objectively rotating as all sides seen by that stationary observer.
DREMT can advance in learning all motion is relative.
Ball4 agrees that the MGR is objectively rotating, but still describes the "base motion" of the chalk circle (which is just a part of the MGR, after all) as translating in a circle! What an odd fellow.
… the MGR is objectively rotating on R, the “base motion” of the chalk circle (which is just a part of the MGR, after all) is also translating in a circle on R as well as spinning on r since all sides of chalk circle and MGR are seen by that stationary observer outside the MGR.
DREMT can advance in learning all motion is relative.
Yes, you can keep repeating yourself, Ball4. It doesn’t make you correct, though. As you agree that the MGR is objectively rotating, then the "base motion" for the movement of the chalk circle must be "rotation about an external axis". In which case, that accounts for all 360 degrees of the observed change in orientation of the chalk circle from outside the MGR. So the chalk circle is not rotating on its own internal axis.
… on its own axis r as observed from the mgr.
Oh dear. Ball4 relapses.
And that is the entire disagreement, everything else is noise and misdirection.
I am kind of curious where your exactly your view on this diverges from physical reality?
Do you believe in inertia?
Do you think the lunar module would have made it back to rendezvous with the mother ship for the return trip to earth if they ignored the radial velocity of the moons rotation about it’s axis, because they believed the moon has no axis?
Do you redefine rotation of every object, including the Earth, and pretend there are really 365 revolutions per orbit?
Do you know the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day?
Do you know why physicists separate out vectors into each component the way they do, such as discerning carefully such different motions as orbital velocity and rotational velocity?
Getting back to, do you believe in inertia?
And this time letting that lead into, Do you know WHY it is called the Inertial Reference Frame, by people who wish to avoid sending highly trained government employees to their demise?
OK, Nicholas.
Objection your Honor, non-responsive!
OK, Nicholas.
Nicholas is throwing so much crap against the wall that he appears desperate. He’s so incoherent it’s as if he’s foaming at the mouth.
He must realize he’s got NOTHING.
If a single word of that seems incoherent to you, you have signaled you can be studiously ignored because you are in way equipped for the conversation at hand.
If a single word of that seems incoherent to you, you have signaled you can be studiously ignored because you are in no way equipped for the conversation at hand.
Nicholas, repeating your nonsense twice doesn’t help you.
Twice zero is still zero.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Deep down Puffman knows that all the pussyfooting about rotation is a way for Moon Dragon cranks not to deal with the physicality of the problem.
Hence why he will NEVER do the Pole Dance Experiment.
The physicality of the problem is adequately dealt with by asking the "Spinners" to produce their physical model of "orbit without spin", and discussing their failure to come up with anything viable.
There is no failure, DREMT just selectively forgets their physically “viable” examples.
I remember all the examples, I think. My memory’s not bad.
I’m just aware that they generally fall into one of two categories:
1) Those that are objectively spinning, thus fail to be an example of "orbit without spin".
2) Those that fail to correctly represent gravity (or in some cases, don’t even have anything at all to represent gravity!)
2) Those that fail to correctly represent gravity (or in some cases, don’t even have anything at all to represent gravity!) such as the BoS.
You already agreed that the string was a fine representation of gravity, Ball4.
DREMT is the commenter that wrote off the BoS as a viable model of “orbit without spin” since BoS “fails the second test because gravity is not some giant cosmic hand carefully moving the celestial body (BoS) around in a big circle.”
No, that quote was about the XY plotter, Ball4. Explain what represents gravity with the XY plotter, if you can (you won’t, and will just continue to misrepresent everything).
Sure, and as DREMT explained, in addition to X-Y plotter DREMT’s second test also rules out BoS as being a viable model of “orbit without spin”.
Ball4’s response is as predicted.
> The physicality of the problem is adequately dealt with by asking
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Team Science haz a shit ton of numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
Moon Dragon cranks sus.
Does Little Willy want “physicality”, or does he want “numerical”?
Graham D. Warner solves physicality by requesting a sammich about a pet concept that is neither coherent nor physical.
It’s as if he used another exchange to plug his incoherent concept.
Little Willy describes "orbital motion" ("orbit without spin") as being neither coherent nor physical! He describes it that way because he doesn’t understand how the two motions ("orbital motion" and "spin") are separate and independent for both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners"!
So, because he doesn’t understand it, he thinks it’s OK to disrupt every thread he’s active in to force discussion onto that subject.
It’s OK, though…others get it. No need to keep pandering to his lack of understanding.
Graham D. Warner tries to evade the fact that he just presented his silly riddle as positively resolving an issue. And now he tries to play dumb over the trivial fact that physics is all about equations and numerical models.
Moon Dragin cranks are not very bright.
Little Willy, without a physical model of "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin"), the "Spinners" really do have NOTHING.
"…physics is all about equations and numerical models"
I think what you mean is that you are easily impressed by equations and numerical models. A physical model is much easier for everyone to understand. Maybe that’s why you suddenly hate the idea, despite asking for "Non-Spinners" to "deal with the physicality of the problem". One minute you want physicality, next minute you want a numerical model. You can’t make your mind up, except that whatever you decide on, "moon dragon cranks" are bad, bad people for some reason.
Graham D. Warner *still* tries to pretend that his silly concept of orbit without spin matters.
In fact, he cannot even realize that it makes orbit and spin interdependent.
Worse, he still thinks that an absence of a model would prove anything!
The path of the Moon Dragon crank is one of a silly baiter.
It’s not my concept of "orbit without spin", at all. I can’t (and won’t) take credit for that inspired notion.
It does not make orbit and spin interdependent. An object can be performing "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin" motion) on its own, and moving like the MOTL (as the "Non-Spinners" would have it). Then, if you added the motion "spin" to that other motion, at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit, you get movement like the MOTR.
Or, an object can be performing "orbital motion" on its own, and moving like the MOTR (as the "Spinners" would have it). Then, if you added the motion "spin" to that other motion, at a rate of once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit, you get movement like the MOTL.
In both cases, "orbital motion" and "spin" are separate and independent motions.
But, as I said, no need to keep pandering to Little Willy’s lack of understanding. The above is just for the benefit of any readers.
The absence of a viable physical model for the "Spinners" version of "orbit without spin" proves that their conception of "orbital motion" simply doesn’t work, physically.
There is no absence of a viable physical model except for DREMT’s second test ruling out the BoS as a viable model of “orbit without spin”.
> An object can be performing “orbital motion” (or “orbit without spin” motion)
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Orbital motion is not orbit without spin motion.
What is it then? An object following a path through space!? How is that even a motion? The trouble with "Spinners" is…they just can’t think straight.
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
Orbital is orbital motion whatever the spin rate of the celestial object could be, zero or any other value.
That’s what independence means.
And? What is it then? An object following a path through space!? How is that even a motion? How can an object that is just following a path through space, with no orientation specified, possibly be a motion!? The trouble with "Spinners" is…they just can’t think straight.
Graham D. Warner keeps playing dumb.
Perhaps he should start with the basics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
I’m making a point, that’s going over your head, Little Willy. Rather than pose it as a question, I’ll be direct with you, instead:
An orbit "just being a path through space" is not a motion. Without orientation being specified, there is no "orbital motion". Hence, "orbital motion" must either be like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
Graham D. Warner pretends that JAQing off is making a point.
That’s why I made the point directly instead of posing it as a question.
How can motion be described by its path? What is exactly a path?
Graham D. Warner really struggles to articulate his thoughts.
An object moving along a circular path in space, with no indication given as to its orientation, is not a motion, Little Willy. It’s just an abstract conception. It works as a word in the English language, e.g. “Mars is in orbit around the Sun”, means “Mars moves along a path through space around the Sun”. Fine. No problem. But, it’s not a motion. So “orbital motion” (or, “orbit without spin” motion) is going to have to include the orientation of the object in order to actually be a motion. The two possible orientations that a body could keep whilst “orbiting without spin” are as shown in the MOTL/MOTR GIF.
Graham D. Warner rediscovers that objects are not motions.
It only took him six or seven years!
Little Willy plays very dumb indeed.
He still believes that an object is only an abstract conception, though.
So there is still work to be done.
Now he is playing even dumber.
According to Graham D. Warner, an orbit is an object that works as a word. He’s getting weirder and weirder.
Maybe you are actually that dumb. To clarify:
The dictionary definition of “orbit”, being just the path of an object through space, with no indication given as to its orientation, does not describe an actual motion, Little Willy. It’s just an abstract conception. Orbit works as a word in the English language, e.g. “Mars is in orbit around the Sun”, means “Mars moves along a path through space around the Sun”. Fine. No problem. But, it’s not a motion. So “orbital motion” (or, “orbit without spin” motion) is going to have to include the orientation of the object in order to actually be a motion. The two possible orientations that a body could keep whilst “orbiting without spin” are as shown in the MOTL/MOTR GIF.
“The dictionary definition of orbit, being just the path of an object through space, with no indication given as to its orientation, does not describe an actual motion, Little Willy.”
Yeah, sure just as the dictionary definition of orbit, being just the path of an object through space, with no indication given as to its color or diameter, does not describe an actual planet with orbital motion. sarc
Bad logic.
As it turns out, the dictionary definition of ‘orbit’ DOES perfectly well describe what Kepler observed for the planets, since at that time they appeared as points in space.
And it perfectly well describes what is observed here in this simulation:
https://spatrick.mit.edu/newtons-cannon
Just because a word doesnt capture ALL aspects of a body’s motion or appearance doesnt invalidate the meaning of the word!
Just as just as the dictionary definition of ‘translate’, being just the change in position of body through space, with no indication given as to its rotation, DOES describe an actual motion.
Nate is commenting out of his thread, again. That’s fine, but if he expects me to read or respond to his remarks, then he knows where to comment.
For Little Willy’s benefit, and for the benefit of anybody still reading (if there is anyone), I have no problem with the word "orbit" as defined in the dictionary, and do not wish to redefine it. It just isn’t a motion. "The path of an object through space…" is not a motion. It’s a path.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
A path is not a motion, Little Willy.
How many years will Graham D. Warner need to distinguish a verb from a noun?
#2
A path is not a motion, Little Willy.
#2
For most situations, orbital motion is adequately approximated by Newtonian mechanics, which explains gravity as a force obeying an inverse-square law.
Little Willy lost another argument, so starts his random quoting process.
After having lost another silly semantic game, Graham D. Warner declares himself the winner.
Meanwhile, orbital motion occurs whenever an object is moving forward and at the same time is pulled by gravity toward another object.
I declare victory because that is what occurred.
To orbit. Verb. To revolve in an orbit around.
Graham D. Warner is a freaking genius.
…and, the action of following a path, though seeming more like a motion, is still indeterminate from the point of view of settling this debate, because no orientation whilst following the path is specified. Even “to translate in a circle” specifies orientation (to move like the MOTR). “To orbit” does not. God, you are slow.
…and if you really want to get into semantics:
“To revolve in an orbit around.”
“To revolve” could mean “to rotate about an external axis”, which would actually specify orientation…i.e. motion like the MOTL. Whoops! Little Willy shoots himself in the foot again.
“”The path of an object through space” is not a motion. Its a path.”
FYI Kepler’s Laws are three laws that describe ORBITS. All of them refer to motions.
“They describe how (1) planets MOVE in elliptical orbits with the Sun as a focus, (2) a planet covers the same area of space in the same amount of time no matter where it is in its orbit, and (3) a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the size of its orbit (its semi-major axis).”
Oh well!
“Even to translate in a circle specifies orientation (to move like the MOTR). To orbit does not. God, you are slow.”
No, it doesnt.
Translate, simply refers to a body changing its position, without mentioning orientation AT ALL.
Thus it describes the position as a function of time that a body follows through space. Specifically that is the path of its COM.
I dont understand why some people naturally need to ‘double down’ on bad logic when it is clearly and repeatedly explained why it is bad logic.
Just to back up what I said about translation, in case Nate questioned it:
"If a body is moved from one position to another, and if the lines joining the initial and final points of each of the points of the body are a set of parallel straight lines of length ℓ, so that the orientation of the body in space is unaltered, the displacement is called a translation parallel to the direction of the lines, through a distance ℓ."
– E. T. Whittaker, A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies, p. 1
> “To revolve” could mean
“To revolve” means what it means.
Orbital motion is not “orbit without spin” motion.
“Orbit without spin” does not refer to any recognized motion in celestial mechanics.
"To revolve in an orbit around"
Revolve can’t mean "orbit", here, unless the sentence is to be interpreted:
"To orbit in an orbit around"
So it seems like it must be the "rotate about an external axis" option. Unless you can specify something else?
"To rotate about an external axis in an orbit around"
Which would then mean:
"To rotate about an external axis in a path around"
Makes sense to me. Motion like the MOTL.
"Orbital motion is not “orbit without spin” motion."
But, you can’t actually say what you think it is. What does it look like?
“To revolve in an orbit around”
“Revolve cant mean “orbit”
Of course it can.
“unless the sentence is to be interpreted”
False.
“Unless you can specify something else?”
No, that’s not how it works.
“Which would then mean”
False.
“Makes sense to me”
Who cares about what Graham D. Warner thinks?
“you cant actually say what you think it is”
Misrepresentation.
“What does it look like?”
Like it does.
OK, so this:
"To orbit. Verb. To revolve in an orbit around."
Can mean:
"To orbit. Verb. To orbit in an orbit around."
according to Little Willy. What a fantastic definition that would be, if language worked like Little Willy wants it to.
"Like it does."
An obvious, child-like dodge of the question.
“OK”
No, quote-fests about silly semantic games are not OK.
Graham D. Warner would really really really like to reduce the question if the Moon spins (it does) to a silly semantic game about the meaning of the word “orbit.” That way he would be able to introduce his silly idea of an “orbit without spin.”
There’s really no need for that kind of rhetorical wedge when one can work out a numerical model. Alas, Moon Dragon cranks have none.
Must really suck to spend seven years on trying to deny that the Moon orbits and spins when it obviously does and that Team Science has a shit ton of numerical models!
"Graham D. Warner would really really really like to reduce the question if the Moon spins (it does) to a silly semantic game about the meaning of the word “orbit.”"
That’s the complete opposite of what I want. It seems to be what you want, though. I guess because all you’ve got are silly semantic games.
[ME, A LOW PEASANT] Do Moon Dragon cranks have a numerical model of the motions of the Moon-Earth system?
[GRAHAM D. WARNER, A TRUE GENIUS] It seems that all you want is to play silly semantic games.
Again: Does Little Willy want “physicality”, or does he want “numerical”?
Little Willy starts looping the thread.
And once again Graham D. Warner wants physics, but not the equations that come with it.
The physicality of a model isn’t related to the fact that it’s a “toy”!
No physical model of "orbit without spin" = the "Spinners" lose.
There’s an equation for you.
No numerical model of the Moon-Earth system = Moon Dragon cranks lose.
And if they can’t tell what happens to the Moon if Earth is suddenly removed from existence and nothing else changes, they lose face.
The "Spinners" lost again.
Another win for Team Science!
Thanks. It’s a nice name for the “Non-Spinners”.
Graham D. Warner seems to forget that Team Science holds that the Moon spins, e.g.:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/moon-phases/
Another sense of humour failure from Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner is a jocular mood this week.
He’s just having a little fun.
Meanwhile, here is how Team Science describes its model:
Op. Cit.
That’s not a physical model of “orbit without spin”, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner imagines that anyone gives a flying truck about the sammich cranks keep requesting.
When these cranks will bring on numerical models to the table, they’ll be allowed to play with Team Science.
Some sammiches were already delivered, but all failed the taste test. Sorry, Little Willy, but it seems like you got NOTHING still.
Graham D. Warner’s opinion on that matter should be considered reliable, as it’s reliably wrong.
Au contraire, Little Willy. I know a tasty sammich when I get one. Unfortunately, all the sammiches served were not viable physical models, and in examining why they were not viable important points were made, to those paying attention.
Graham D. Warner explains fairly well how Step 1 and Step 2 goes hand in hand.
…to those paying attention.
> Oh wow, I did miss a lot didnt I?
Here’s what should not be missed:
WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON
[G] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[G] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[G] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[G] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity rigid, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[G] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this.
Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[G] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of rigid enough. How you you calculate rigidness and what value constitutes rigid enough?
[G] Think what you want. Orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTL.
https://tinyurl.com/tim-and-graham-on-torques
Why does your link just take you to another of your false summaries? For the actual discussion, you have to click on your link, then go down to where I’ve provided a link to the actual discussion. Weird.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Little Willy always ends up saying that Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
I understand that you wish to try to convince them while playing by their rules and terminology, but really, I am 100% sure there are no reasons to make analogies.
It comes down to a simple observation: Either the Moon is rotating on its axis once a month, or the entire Universe is spinning around the Moon every month, including galaxies that are billions of light years away.
Only a Lunatic thinks it is the Universe spinning, or it (that entire universe whirling around in a month) can be ignored because Earth is staying in place.
One of the comments I made that was apparently not posted because maybe I used a banned word, asked a very simple question: What happens to the Moon if Earth is suddenly removed from existence and nothing else changes?
Answer: The Moon retains it’s once per month rotation (because, as we all know, conservation of angular momentum…inertia), while it finds a new orbit around the Sun. At that point, nothing is sitting still in the sky of the Moon anymore. It is still rotating once a month.
All wrong, Nick.
You’re way late to this Moon nonsense. So it’s obvious you don’t know anything about it.
If you believe Moon spins, then your obligation is to prove you understand orbital motion. So what is your model of “orbiting without spin”?
Misdirection is a delicate art. Does not work to try to brute force it, m’kay?
There’s a good lad.
Reality is NOT a misdirection, Nick.
If you’re going to enter this Moon nonsense, you can enter as a responsible adult, or as a cult kid.
Your choice.
Hint: A responsible adult does not reject reality.
Sock puppets are not REALITY, Puffman.
When will you do the Pole Dance Experiment?
Silly willy is the opposite of a “responsible adult”, AKA a “cult child”.
Puffman is the opposite of a guy who has a big Climateball repertoire.
"It comes down to a simple observation: Either the Moon is rotating on its axis once a month, or the entire Universe is spinning around the Moon every month, including galaxies that are billions of light years away."
No, Nicholas. It doesn’t come down to that at all. Why are you so ignorant of the absolute basics of this discussion, yet so arrogantly certain that you’re right?
Mister Dre,
You responded, “No…”
Now, as compelling an argument as this is, I remain unmoved.
You’re missing the third option:
The moon is "orbiting".
If you ask me nicely, I’ll tell you why your applications for the job of interplanetary navigator keep getting rejected.
The idea is that "orbital motion" (or, "orbit without spin") involves the celestial object changing its orientation through 360 degrees wrt an inertial reference frame, once per orbit. So, of course you would see the stars apparently moving from the surface of the moon.
So you already know that your misunderstanding of the concept of the inertial reference frame is why you will never get the job!
Now, to complete your journey to the light side of The Force, my young Padawan, how many sidereal days are there in an Earth Year?
366.25.
But, the reality is that the Earth rotates on its own axis 365.25 times per orbit.
Yes, that is quantified wrt a rotating reference frame.
However, that is only necessary as a result of the fact that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. That consideration comes first.
DREMPTY,
Some orbits are not closed, meaning they do not repeat.
Some orbits are chaotic, meaning they may be closed but do not repeat.
Orbital motion does not include orientation.
In order for an object to change orientation it must rotate on an internal axis.
If you say so, bob.
> because, as we all know, conservation of angular momentum…inertia
Keep mentioning these concepts, Nicholas.
Moon Dragon cranks react to it like vampires receiving holy water!
And it seems that asking for answers to simple questions is like asking vampires if they would like a ride to the beach on a sunny day.
Yes, Nicholas, keep mentioning these concepts in an oddly disconnected way, as if you have no idea how they apply but wish to sound intelligent by the mere action of saying them.
So, by “oddly disconnected”, you mean “sticking to the actual subject at hand”, right?
No. I meant, like this:
"Answer: The Moon retains it’s once per month rotation (because, as we all know, conservation of angular momentum…inertia)"
You’ve just sort of stuck the terms in there.
For someone who seems to enjoy thought experiments, you seem oddly reticent to examine the very one that settles the entire matter once and for all.
Believe me, I completely understand why, not to worry.
Here could be another way:
“describing something as having spin angular momentum becomes meaningless as regards whether or not that object is objectively spinning”
Graham D. Warner is the True Master of disconnected writing.
This discussion has been ongoing for years, Nicholas. Your thought experiment has been brought up before. Many, many times. It doesn’t resolve the moon debate.
Here is a new rhetorical technique I have recently learned:
Yes, Mister Dre, it does!
OK. Agree to disagree.
The funny thing is, you claim to know exactly what you are talking about and are objectively correct, but here you concede that nothing is settled in your view.
But it is settled.
And it seems it will be rejection slips, all the way down.
No, I mean that your thought experiment doesn’t resolve the moon debate. What resolves the moon debate is that you guys can’t come up with a physical model for "orbit without spin".
For someone who can repeat the same long winded explanations of analogies for literally years on end and many hours per day, you refuse to answer what happens when the Earth disappears.
And we all know why.
And you know we know why.
So, I do not agree to disagree, because you have not disagreed, you have sidestepped.
Asking for sammiches is not the debate.
Conclude as you wish.
And the only possible conclusion is you have all the time in the world to talk about anything except for the actual matter at hand.
OK, Nicholas.
Does the moon revolve around it’s axis is question. There is no other.
If the Earth disappears, the moon becomes a minor planet in orbit around the Sun, and revolves one rotation per month, which is called it’s day.
That is all there is to it.
Period.
If you disagree, you are wrong, without question.
If you insist, Nicholas. Will that be all?
Notice how Graham D. Warner acts as if it was his thread, Nicholas.
We all know that really, every thread is Little Willy’s thread.
Oh, and Nicholas –
Please notice how Graham D. Warner always seems to be a bit bored to discuss what he keeps resurrecting on almost each every open thread at Roy’s since at least 2019-11.
I’m bored when new people come along, who haven’t paid any attention to the discussions over the years, then demand that all their questions are answered (questions they could have answered for themselves if only they’d been paying attention!).
Poor Graham D. Warner. Always the victim.
It’s as if he never really remembers anything:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-627725
Oh, OK. He’s commented on this before, then. No, I’d totally forgotten him…I did wonder why he seemed to know who I was. Good job you’re an obsessive stalker, Little Willy, who keeps track of every single conversation I’ve ever had.
Perhaps one day Graham D. Warner will learn to use a search engine.
The methods of your stalking don’t make you any less of a stalker, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner, forever the victim.
The victim of your stalking? Yes, absolutely.
So, you speak of “the debate”, but consider being asked to respond to questions to be an outrageous affront to your dignity (or something)?
You will not engage the questions I asked for only one reason, and that reason is that you have no intention of settling anything, ever.
Any questions you have which are still unanswered, you could work out the answers for yourself by paying more attention to the discussion.
Graham D. Warner, who so far refused to even engage with Nicholas, has strong opinions about progress.
I’ve answered some of his questions. He can answer the rest for himself without too much difficulty.
It would be easy for Graham D. Warner to leave a thread in which Nicholas asks a question he refuses to answer.
But he just needs to own another thread.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Nope DREMPTY,
You miss the point again.
The word is “either”
Orbital motion can be neither the MOTL nor the MOTR.
It can be other than an elliptical path that a body is following.
Poor bob can’t even respond in the correct place!
Why is Graham D. Warner so dishonest as to pretend that he has anything to offer against the polar argument?
I’m among the most honest commenters on this blog.
“Im among the most honest commenters on this blog.””
And here now…some have accused you of being humorless!
Best of all, to the untrained eye, that comment seems almost like someone who is asserting they are honest.
Good on ya, mate!
I get tired of being accused of dishonesty. So, naturally, the "Spinners" here will ramp up their accusations of dishonesty.
Let it never be said that Lunatics have not mastered the sledge hammer approach to misdirection.
See what I mean?
Beware that Graham D. Warner’s pet misdirection regarding the polar argument is Mt. Everest, Nicholas, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-977638
Little Willy’s on another planet from the point, as usual.
At some point, Graham D. Warner just can’t resist the gaslighting.
Astute readers can judge for themselves if Little Willy’s link has anything to do with "the polar argument".
Mister Dre,
Do you believe that we sent people to the Moon and they returned back to the Earth?
Straight question.
Because it seems to me you must think the Moon landings did not occur.
If the moon is not rotating, the calculations used by NASA would have assured disaster.
In fact, if we did not use sidereal calculations to correctly account for Earth’s radial velocity, every space launch from Earth itself would be miscalculated.
Yes, I believe we sent people to the moon, and they returned.
There’s nothing wrong with the way things are currently done, as in…the calculations will work. Obviously, they did, and do.
This is another one of those arguments that prove the person making it doesn’t really understand the moon debate, yet.
That’s OK.
I understand that you consider it something like a job to play the role you are playing.
And you are on permanent retainer, and the job description calls for you to do one thing only.
OK, Nicholas.
Please consider how Graham D. Warner dismissed the polar argument while trying to portray you as ignorant of the Moon Dragon Cranks’ Master Argument, Nicholas.
Yes, I said the "Spinners" would ramp up their accusations of dishonesty.
Graham D. Warner was already tired in 2021:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-627760
True. Certain aspects of this have been tiring for a while. But, it’s all for a good cause.
Then I suppose we can return to our regular program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#Laws_of_astrodynamics
Silly willy found another link he can’t understand.
That’s because it involves science….
Puffman might have the smallest Climateball playbook imaginable.
Prove him wrong, then, Little Willy. Explain what your point is, in your own words, by linking and quoting that.
The cult finds things on the Internet that support their cult beliefs, not realizing that the Internet is full of their cult beliefs. They can’t understand the basic science.
For example, look at the very first graphic in silly willy’s link. The graphic shows the vectors. These are the same vectors operating on both Moon and the ball-on-a-sting. But silly willy, and his cult, don’t understand the basic science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#Laws_of_astrodynamics
barry did the same thing. He found a link he can’t understand. The link proves him wrong, but like with his “view factors”, he can’t understand.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Circular_motion_vs_rotation.svg
Puffman says stuff once more.
He should return to the basics:
https://youtu.be/7rljc6QN-N0?si=RbChRHQ6cgNytTot
They don’t really want to understand, Clint R. That’s what I’ve decided.
I agree DREMT. They don’t want to understand. They are afraid of reality.
Kids don’t want to grow up.
“They dont really want to understand”
Its true, we don’t really need to understand all the Flat Earther arguments to know they are nuts.
And in this instance, we have seen all the arguments 47 times, and have shown why they are wrong and nuts 47 times.
"Kids don’t want to grow up."
A good example is Nate. He has a thread he can comment in, if he wants to interact with me. Yet here he is, merrily commenting away on other threads instead, thus demonstrating that he has no real interest in learning my way of looking at things. It shows that his interest is in trying to get the last word.
Of course, judging from our interaction on the other thread, he acts like he thinks he knows everything there is to know about my way of looking at things, already. Except that his actual comments demonstrate he still doesn’t get it.
He doesn’t get it, and doesn’t want to learn. Too much effort, perhaps.
Nate, that’s NOT true. You’re making things up again. You can’t face reality. You’re nothing more than a child of the cult.
I don’t advocate “flat earth”. My examples are valid science. The ball-on-a-string is a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t understand the science. You don’t understand simple vector addition. You can’t understand any of this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660720
Your cult is the one presenting “47” different invalid arguments, like “passenger jets flying backward”. You have NO viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
When it comes to science and reality, you’ve got NOTHING.
WRONG, Puffman.
Because REALITY. And SCIENCE. And CAPS LOCK.
Do the POLE DANCE EXPERIMENT.
As I said, silly willy and Nate have NOTHING. They’re children of the cult.
As usual you said absolutely NOTHING, Puffman.
Riddle me this – does the center of the Earth have zero velocity?
Child willy if you want to discuss science, then provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Until you can do that, you’re just an immature brat with NOTHING.
Puffman if you disappear from this blog for six months and you publish a video showing you doing the pole dance experiment, I’ll gladly prove you WRONG about your silly balls.
Sorry child willy, but that ain’t science. You don’t have any science. Youre just an immature brat with NOTHING.
Don’t be sorry, Puffman, be more diligent – 38 minutes is too long.
Riddle me this. What is the common center of balance for the Earth-Moon system?
Child willy if you want to discuss science, then you need to provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Until you can do that, you’re just an immature brat with NOTHING.
Again too long, Puffman.
Riddle me this – how many Lagrange points does the Moon-Earth system have?
Yeah silly willy, you don’t have any science to support your beliefs, as I’ve said. You’re an immature cult child, with NO science.
Keep proving me right. I can take it….
Again too long, Puffman. You need to speed up.
Riddle me this – why are orbits elliptical?
Consider that in over five years of continuous attention, some people cannot learn the definition of one single word, while others among us go from pimple face kid at high school prom to having a PhD.
“Orbit” means what it means. That won’t settle the debate, because a path ain’t a motion.
“Orbital motion”, or “orbit without spin” motion, is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate.
So…your physical model of “orbit without spin”, Nicholas?
Graham D. Warner does not seem to have any problem using orbit without spin to describe a motion. Yet he plays dumb about the concept of orbit.
The path of the Moon Dragon crank is one of infinite bliss.
Little Willy is determined to get in the way of any progress.
Graham D. Warner, who just stalled for a week trying to argue that he fails to understand how the trajectory and the motion of a celestial object could be connected, has opinions about progress.
“Orbit” means what it means. That won’t settle the debate, because a path ain’t a motion, and "to follow a path" doesn’t specify the orientation of the object doing so.
“Orbital motion”, or “orbit without spin” motion, is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate.
So…your physical model of “orbit without spin”, Nicholas?
Graham D. Warner dances around a simple question –
“What happens to the Moon if Earth is suddenly removed from existence and nothing else changes?”
This is the topic of the thread Nicholas kicked out.
Everything else has been prevarication by Graham D. Warner.
I’ll just wait for Nicholas to respond, if he’s ever going to.
Graham D. Warner refuses to answer Nicholas’ question while waiting for that Nicholas answers his usual motte-and-bailey.
Obviously it’s not a motte-and-bailey, Little Willy. Yes, I refuse to re-answer questions discussed a thousand times, at this point in a long debate. Besides, we’d kind of moved on, in this thread.
Obviously anything is a good excuse for Graham D. Warner to keep peddling his motte-and-bailey…
Justify your use of the term "motte-and-bailey", here, Little Willy.
Still waiting for Graham D. Warner’s answer to Nicholas’ question.
Wait away, Little Willy.
Let’s recall the question that started this thread:
Answering Nicholas’ question may involve concepts like angular momentum and inertia!
Keep on waitin’.
What happens to the Moon if Earth is suddenly removed from existence and nothing else changes?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Really inquiring minds would have already read the discussion when barry asked the same question, and Clint R answered. It was among the comments under this article!
But, carry on beating your dead horse.
Graham D. Warner handwaves and hides behind Puffman.
What else is new?
If you say so, Little Willy.
Someone is using the wrong definition of orbit.
“Orbital motion, or orbit without spin motion, is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate.”
This is wrong, because I can provide counter examples where orbital motion is nothing like either the MOTL or MOTR.
Like the second law of thermodynamics, TANSTAAFL.
For a nominal service charge I will devote all my attention to thee.
Look here brother, who you jiving with that cosmic debris?
OK, bob.
OK DREMPT
Basic logic, if your premise is false, then your conclusion does not follow.
Since
“Orbital motion, or orbit without spin motion, is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR.”
Is false
Since orbital motion could follow parabolic or hyperbolic motions.
This is an interesting youtube video that settles the Moon issue once and for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU
It’s only 15 minutes and doesn’t even mention the Moon.
If you say so, bob.
DREMPTY,
Did you forget the /sarc tag?
Did you forget that orbit does not include orientation?
Did you watch the video?
Did you understand the video?
All of the above?
They tend to get flustered if you don’t rise to their obvious baiting.
DREMPTY,
No baiting, just revealing how wrong you are.
You see, you keep asking for a model of orbital motion without rotation.
You might as well ask for Unicorns with six legs and a thagomizer.
That kind of object does not exist.
Everything is spinning.
Except maybe the whole universe, but they are not sure about that.
I’m sure you’re right, bob.
DREMPTY,
You didn’t tell a lie there did you.
Most honest person on this blog????????????
More baiting from the repro-bait.
DREMPTY,
You couldn’t resist, could you?
You said
“Im sure youre right, bob.”
In response to me saying everything is spinning.
So you either agree that everything is spinning or you are lying.
Which means that you agree that the Moon is spinning.
Thanks for playing.
Score Bob 10 ^ 82 DREMPTY 0
bob, I’ve just been saying a few fairly non-committal phrases to you, to indicate that I’m not taking your bait. Maybe it’s just a cultural thing. In England, if you say "I’m sure you’re right", it’s not taken as a sign of definite agreement, or anything. It’s more like, "if you say so".
DREMTPY,
I am not baiting you, I am just correcting your misinformation.
Trying to teach you something.
But you don’t have a sufficient science background, so you are helpless.
^^ That’s bait. ^^
Yeah, maybe,
But you took it, and everything I posted is true.
You don’t understand the science, possibly because you don’t have enough of a science background.
Claiming the Moon doesn’t rotate on an internal axis is xxxxxing.
bob as good as admits to trolling. Another easy win for Team JITH.
Yeah, maybe, do you understand what the word maybe means?
Everything I said is true, but you are lying again and again.
Fact is that the Moon is rotating on an internal axis, anyone saying otherwise is lying.
Also saying that orbital motion without axial rotation is either the MOTL or MOTR, is also lying.
But you don’t have the smarts to understand that.
Could you get your money back for you BS degree?
bob calls RLH a liar:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1659173
Another easy win for Team JITH.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] bob as good as admits
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] In England, if you say “Im sure youre right”, its not taken as a sign of definite agreement
Another easy win for Team JITH.
No I didn’t DREMPTY,
Because you and RLH said different things.
RLH said “The only question if orbiting without spin is MOTL or MOTR.”
But you said
“Orbital motion, or orbit without spin motion, is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate.”
There is a subtle difference there, which goes over your head.
Since there are ways to orbit other than an elliptical one.
Lol.
DREMPTY doesn’t understand what orbiting means.
What a waste of an education.
Too much exposure to death metal.
The only difference between what I said, and what RLH said, is the "orbital motion" phrase. Fine, drop it, if you like. I’ll rephrase:
"Orbit without spin" motion is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate."
There’s no difference now, at all, between what I have just said and what RLH said.
No doubt you’ll still have a problem with me, and not him.
DREMPTY,
You are still missing the point.
Now you switch to
“Orbit without spin” motion is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Deciding which that is will settle the debate.”
The key word here is “either”
Meaning you don’t think there are examples of Orbit without spin motion that is not an elliptical orbit like the orbit of the Moon.
That is not the case, therefore you are wrong.
The debate was settled long ago, before either of us were born.
Whatever you say, bob.
Nick brings some new nonsense to add to the other Moon nonsense: “Because it seems to me you must think the Moon landings did not occur.
If the moon is not rotating, the calculations used by NASA would have assured disaster.”
Nick must believe things that don’t exist might have affected the lunar landings. I wonder if he has the calculations for the number of unicorns at the lunar landing site….
I’ll add “lunar landings” to the long list of desperate ravings from the Spinners.
I was able to find the complete list, and have added the newest:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards
Ball-on-a-string does not count
Bicycle pedals do not rotate
Barycenter
Stirring a pot
Lunar landings
What will the Spinners try next?
You almost got it, Puffman. You only forgot to spell out the arguments. Here’s how grownups do it:
## THE MOON DRAGON CRANK MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 5.1)
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
(AXIOMS) The Moon does not spin because there is no axis of rotation. It is impossible to spin and not to spin at the same time. Since the Moon does not spin, it cant spin.
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. In that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation. But it is only an illustration.
(CANNONBALL) The cannon and ball are not rotating on their own axes whilst sitting there, they are rotating about the Earths axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
(TORQUE) Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no spin.
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins. If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.
(SEE) We only see one side of it from Earth.
(ILLUSION) It *looks* like the Moon is spinning, but as Tesla said its an illusion.
(IMPOSSIBLE) You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon! 1 + 1 does not equal 1!
(ONLY) You can only model the motion of the moon with translation plus spin, and rotation about an external axis with no spin.
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
(TRANSLATION) It is not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation.
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
(FLOPS TRICK) Flop showed how to purely rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
(TRANSMOGRAPHER) The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon cannot be described with an orbit and a spin.
(IF-BY-WHISKEY) It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what? Thats just semantics.
(SIMPLES) The simplest way to describe the Moons motion is as ONE rotation about the Earth-Moon center of mass. Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(TRACK) Generally speaking, one can determine if a celestial body spins when by seeing all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit. It would be like watching a runner on an elliptical track from the seats in the auditorium.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perical. That csaitruth guy. Aleksandar S. Tomic.
(DUDEISM) Well, thats, like, my opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
Just when we thought silly willy couldn’t get any sillier….
Confirmation bias strikes again for Puffman!
Grownups might actually try a bit harder to understand the arguments made by their opponents first.
First time Graham D. Warner is being critical of Puffman.
Silly Willy can always get sillier…
Graham D. Warner has nothing much to say.
Willard,
Please don’t dox DREMT.
Monkey Man is a monkey.
If anyone is thinking of commenting at the blog “And Then There’s Physics…”, they should be warned that Little Willy, who is a moderator there, might just find out where you live from your IP address and post it online at another blog, like he did with me. A deeply unpleasant stalker and doxer.
Graham D. Warner has a song about that fantasy of his.
No, not exactly about that. That would be…kinda kinky.
Yet there is the same misconception about how IPs work.
Should I be concerned about Graham D. Warner’s fantasies?
You wrote the name of the county (not “country”, “county”) I live in, on this blog. At the time you posted that, it was before I had linked to the video which revealed my YouTube account. So there was nothing to give you any clues about my identity at that time. You could only have got my location from my IP address when I was commenting at ATTP. It doesn’t give you the exact location, obviously, but it got you worryingly close. So now you can go around smugly brushing it all off as if it’s nothing. But, you’re a despicable, stalking piece of shit, and I hope everyone recognises it.
Here is Graham D. Warner’s song:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597538
Monkey Man found these lyrics very disturbing at the time.
Should we be concerned by Graham D. Warner’s mental health, besides his incapacity to distinguish verb and noun functions in a sentence?
I remember he said he was attempting to be silly when writing those lyrics. How can you feel threatened from DREMT if he knows nothing about you?
Also, he’d be pretty dumb to try to hurt you if you have his IP address. You can easily just turn him in, and he wouldn’t have any chance to get away with anything.
Monkey Man remembers what suits him, displays his lack of proficiency in another domain of knowledge, and plays dumb about the point being made.
As he would say himself, he’s just a little bitch.
One key characteristic of paranoia is interpreting neutral comments as hostile or threatening. Making false claims about others’ motivations and attacking them with ad hominems to justify their own suspicions or beliefs reflects the tendency of that interpretation.
It’s important to distinguish between genuine victims and those who might be playing the victim. True victims need support and understanding. However, if someone is manipulating situations or avoiding accountability, it can be helpful to recognize the behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUupPGSvtjU
Gaslighting is a nasty web of manipulation, and abusers can be quite creative in their tactics. Here are some variations of gaslighting to be aware of:
Triangulation: This involves bringing a third person into the situation to create confusion and make the victim feel isolated. For instance, a gaslighter might badmouth the victim to a friend and then deny doing so, leaving the victim questioning their own memory and the friend’s perception.
Projection: The gaslighter flips the script, accusing the victim of the very behaviors they themselves are exhibiting. They might call the victim “crazy” or “paranoid” to deflect from their own manipulative actions.
Discrediting: The gaslighter attacks the victim’s character or mental health to make their concerns seem less believable. They might say things like, “You’re too sensitive” or “Nobody would believe you anyway.”
Minimizing: The gaslighter downplays the victim’s feelings or experiences. They might say, “It wasn’t a big deal” or “You’re just overreacting.”
Guilt-tripping: The gaslighter uses guilt to control the victim. They might make the victim feel responsible for their bad moods or actions.
Benevolent gaslighting: This is a subtler form where the gaslighter disguises their manipulation as concern or helpfulness. They might say things like, “I’m just trying to help you see things clearly” while subtly undermining the victim’s reality.
Indeed, gaslighting is certainly not proper online etiquette.
“They might call the victim “crazy” or “paranoid” to deflect from their own manipulative actions.”
“Discrediting: The gaslighter attacks the victim’s character or mental health to make their concerns seem less believable.”
[LITTLE WILLY] Should we be concerned by Graham D. Warner’s mental health, besides his incapacity to distinguish verb and noun functions in a sentence?
A person who really wanted to hurt or murder another person on the internet and get away with it wouldn’t give any indication whatsoever about having homicidal thoughts, and that includes posting music.
Little Willy achieves what he set out to, which was to distract the attention away from his abuse of his position as moderator at ATTP. How did he know which county I lived in, if not through checking my IP address!?
The song is just some social commentary about the state of internet debating.
Triangulation: This involves bringing a third person into the situation to create confusion and make the victim feel isolated. For instance, a gaslighter might badmouth the victim to a friend and then deny doing so, leaving the victim questioning their own memory and the friends perception.
Little Willy’s biggest act of projection is the constant, relentless stream of accusations of gaslighting. In fact, argument by repeated assertion in this manner is akin to brainwashing.
Graham D. Warner flips the script, accusing the victim of the very behaviors he himself is exhibiting. He might call the victim “crazy” or “paranoid” to deflect from their own manipulative – Oh, no, that’s Monkey Man!
When will Graham D. Warner tell Monkey Man that he himself released the video on this blog?
The video? You mean the moon does not rotate video? Sure. I linked to that myself…and, your abuse of your position at ATTP happened before I linked to the video on here, as I said. You said the county I lived in, on this blog, before the video upload date on YouTube. It’s all time-stamped, so I can prove that, if need be.
Again…you can only possibly have known the county I lived in from checking my IP address while I commented at ATTP. If you have another way of knowing it, share it!
> You mean the moon does not rotate video?
And so Graham D. Warner reveals that he has no idea what Monkey Man was being a whiny bitch about.
At least I don’t dox people.
You are very hypersensitive.
Monkey Man still believes that I doxed Graham D. Warner by posting a video Graham D. Warner still fails to identify.
Our two whiny bitches need to coordinate better.
Minimizing: The gaslighter downplays the victims feelings or experiences. They might say, “You’re just overreacting.” or “You are very hypersensitive.”
You post my comments from WUWT here. Sometimes they are relevant, and other times they are not. A couple of months back, you posted a comment I left at WUWT dating back almost a year ago from now. At the time, I operated under a different nym and hadn’t even met you. I thought that was weird. You frequently do that to people you disagree with; it’s clearly meant to discredit. We’re all just commentators on an open forum blog, but for some reason, you and a couple of others want to portray dissenting views as disinformation.
I’m not directly accusing you because I do not have concrete evidence. But it’s not unfair to say it’s some otherworldly, wild speculation.
to say its *not*
Monkey Man makes public comments. I cite his best ones. Monkey Man cries about doxing.
Monkey Man is a whiny bitch, who now at least concedes that his “neutral” comments were not that neutral. Almost.
Little Willy: how exactly did you find out the county I live in?
Has Graham D. Warner finally found the video Monkey Man was being a whiny bitch about?
I used the words ‘otherworldly’ and ‘wild’ to characterize my perspective. There’s truly no reason to respond with ad hominem attacks or defensiveness to such descriptors. I’m merely recounting the observations I’ve made. As I said, I’m not accusing you of anything, as that would naive.
The "Come As You Are, But Different", one? Yes, OK. I have linked to that myself on here, sure.
None of which changes the fact that before you were even aware of my YouTube channel, which you used to find out information about my identity, you had already posted the name of the county I live in on this blog.
How did you find that out, Little Willy? Because, the only option I can think of is that you abused your position of moderator when I commented at ATTP.
That would really not be OK.
When will Graham D. Warner correct Monkey Man’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660853
?
"Dox: search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent."
Well, the video isn’t private, but does it have identifying information about me? Well, you found out some identifying information about me through looking at my YouTube channel…so, in a way, any video published through my YouTube channel does too. Do you do it with malicious intent? Of course! Absolutely.
So, it’s debatable, I guess…but you could say it’s doxing. Is it stalking? Absolutely.
And, it’s definitely doxing for you to publish the county I live in on this blog before you were even aware of my YouTube channel. You abusing your position as a moderator at another blog in order to obtain that through my IP address might even be breaking the law!
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
Let’s jog his memory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1240543
Perhaps he could try again, this time with more feeling?
…and the date of the comment where you mention the county I live in is prior to that.
Astute readers thus can see that Graham D. Warner is trying to exploit Monkey Man’s mistake to inject his own vendetta…
Manipulators manipulating one another to manipulate and gaslight their victim – how low can they go?
Nobody is going to buy that you’re not the manipulator here, Little Willy.
One manipulator here jumped on me while pretending to be “neutral.” He made a false accusation. He misrepresented the point made by citing a very violent song.
The other manipulator refuses to acknowledge that the accusation is false. He plays along the misrepresentation, even denying that it targeted me. And he tries to take advantage of the situation by constantly trying to inject his own pet vendetta.
And all the while our two bozos display their total obliviousness regarding the cues they try to send one another. Worse than that, they totally fail to add any kind of realism to their theatrics.
It’s just a total disgrace.
OK, Little Willy.
But, in all seriousness:
How did you find out the county I lived in?
Just a loose usage of the word.
DREMT,
Can you provide the comment where your county of residence was revealed?
Monkey Man sucks at racehorsing.
He’s better at being a whiny bitch.
Let’s tease out Monkey Man’s “loose” usage –
Clicking on the link leads to a video made by a guy called Charmaster Infurion. Click on that name:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZjvtK9Z5bEzJz8dEe2n_Q
Read
There. Even a whiny bitch like Monkey Man could do this.
Kids, these days.
I sure can, Walter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1160735
Date stamp is prior to when I even uploaded the video to YouTube that led Little Willy to find out information about me. So, how did he know which county I lived in? He will not answer.
Graham D. Warner confirms unidentifying information many years after his own self reveal. All this because so far his victim playing is not working his way.
Perhaps he could tell Monkey Man when he wrote his song? Not that it is related to that single comment (uncited until now) that contains unconfirmed and unidentifying information, mind you.
As Graham D. Warner said, the song was more of a social commentary.
Right?
There was no "self-reveal". I simply linked on here to a video I’d created, and as a result, various people (who were obsessed with me already) used that to find out more information about me.
Regardless, before the video was linked to on here, you had already disclosed the county I lived in. The only way you could have possibly known that was through my IP address when I commented at ATTP. That’s the real problem.
I mean, obviously only a total jerk would use the information you found out from my YouTube channel, and the videos themselves, in the way that you have. That goes without saying.
However, the real problem is you abusing your position as moderator at ATTP.
The song is social commentary, indeed. I know you think everything is about you, because you’re a narcissist. However, it really isn’t. I have seen people on here who have behaved as if they are as angry as the person in the song. So, in a way, it’s inspired by real life events, sure. The IP address detail is, also. Lots of art is inspired by real life. You don’t have to take everything so literally, and so personally, though.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
Indeed there was. His video cited **all** of his public accounts. His name. His email. Heck, he even says **exactly** where he lives.
He knows that. He also knows how to make all these informations disappear. But he didn’t. And he won’t.
And the reason is quite simple: it is all written over his silly smut song.
The YouTube channel, as is the case for most artist channels, contains links to social media pages for the artist, etc. That’s what is encouraged, if you have an artist channel. On my artist Facebook page, you can find contact details if you actively look for them, which you obviously did. Nobody forced you to look, Little Willy. You chose to. Nobody forced you to post them on here. You chose to. That’s stalking, if nothing else. Some would go as far as to say doxing.
Little Willy knows that in any case, before the video was linked, so before he even had access to any of that information, he shared the county I lived in, on here. How did he know it? That’s the only question that needs to be answered.
Graham D. Warner at last concedes that he’s the one who revealed all the identifying information. According to his own silly logic, he doxed himself. Would we not know his silly smut song, it would not make any sense. But then we know his silly smut song.
A smut song in which he entertains the fantasy of getting killed.
Getting killed by someone who knows his IP.
He’s so afraid and traumatized that all his personal information are still there. Personal information that not even Taylor Swift would reveal.
What a silly jerk.
DREMT is talking about the comment in January, not the music video you linked, dating later in April.
Monkey Man clings to his “loose” usage and shows once again his lack of attention to detail.
A whiny bitch.
Another sign of paranoia is deflecting from subjects that trigger paranoid thoughts or suspicions.
Walter R. Hogle still tries to triangulate and guilt trip like a whiny bitch.
“DREMT is talking about the comment in January, not the music video you linked, dating later in April.”
Exactly. How did he know my county name? Watch him do anything humanly possible to evade the question.
Let’s put Walter R. Hogle’s triangulation “in context”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619066
Is this doxing in a “loose” sense?
You’re definitely not Ken Rice. Ken Rice actually has some understanding of physics. You just have some understanding of how Google works.
Gordon had a point. To show good faith, you could have revealed who you are.
Any chance of you answering the question?
Graham D. Warner is definitely a lousy hypocrite:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277855
This might not be doxing like what he did to Nate (perhaps Walter R. Hogle could ask him about that one), but it’s creepy AF.
Nate had already dropped his full name on this blog before, and frequently appeals to his own authority as a physicist of some kind. So, I looked him up and posted a comment along the lines of “Nate x of x University…”, because I think if he wants people to take his word as some sort of physicist, he should post all the time under his full name! Like Tim Folkerts does.
Little Willy finds more ways to attempt to distract attention from any criticism of him.
How did you find out the county name?
Graham D. Warner simply did a little stalking, as a treat. And he also did a little doxing, by revealing where Nate was working. His minimizations are not as original as for his smut song, however.
Too bad he did not warn Walter R. Hogle before exploiting his triangulation. That could splash on him. Alas, our whiny bitch already cried uncle twice.
I once did something I’m not proud of, sure. Back then I was reading his comments, and he used to obsessively follow me around from thread to thread leaving personal remarks, knowing I couldn’t say anything to defend myself. To portray me as the stalker, overall, rather than Nate, given our history, is another hilarious bit of spin from Little Willy.
How did you find out the county name?
Gastro is not as whiny as Walter R. Hogle, but it’s a bitch.
County name?
While Graham D. Warner keeps equivocating, he showed remorse in stalking and doxing.
So here is the only answer he will get – let him ask Flop. He knows about these things.
I already know the answer. The only possible way you could have known the name of the county I lived in is through my IP address when I commented at ATTP. Let that be a warning to anyone that thinks about commenting there – the moderator is a total psycho.
a.
Walter R. Hogle still tries to triangulate like the whiny bitch he is while Graham D. Warner still shows that he can’t get anything except what he expects to read.
1.
Looks like triangulation was not enough.
Walter R. Hogle is now doing a little dehumanizing.
So, writing a single letter equals "triangulation" and writing a single number equals "dehumanisation".
Amazing!
County name?
Funny how Graham D. Warner kinda forgot how this exchange started:
[ME] Graham D. Warner has nothing much to say.
[WALTER R. HOGLE] Please don’t dox [Graham D. Warner].
Here was the “doxing” video:
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
Now that Walter R. Hogle knows the provenance of that video, he switched to a “loose” interpretation of doxing.
I wonder what that “loose” interpretation could be.
Little Willy, I didn’t say anything about how the thread started, or didn’t start. I’m just trying to get you to give a straight answer to a very simple question.
How did you find out the name of the county I lived in?
On my behalf, I’ll admit to mostly just trying to get a rise out of you.
Walter R. Hogle finally admits that his “loosely” does not matter much in the end. Meanwhile, Graham R. Warner continues to triangulate by misrepresenting the concept of doxing. By serendipity, that misrepresentation allows him to minimize what he himself has done.
Our whiny bitches ain’t got no free lunch.
How about you take some responsibility for what you have done, Little Willy?
County name?
How about Graham D. Warner takes responsibility for jumping in a thread with his pet vendetta?
He doxed Nate. I never doxed him.
What would be remarkable is if Little Willy ever took any responsibility for anything. In Little Willy’s world, because I, on one occasion, wrote the full name of a person who had already posted under his full name on this blog, it justifies him writing my full name literally hundreds of times. Dozens of links to my videos, too, littering the blog. Little Willy has obviously taken this way too far, but can’t possibly show even the slightest hint of taking any responsibility for it.
The county name?
What would be remarkable is if Graham D. Warner actually tried a bit harder to understand what is being said.
Now that he’s getting schooled by Nate on his pet crankery, astute readers may suspect why he doxed him. As if his “diploma” with “high honors” did not prepare him to meet a real physicist…
The county name, Little Willy? How did you find that out?
[It was a BSc (Hons), Little Willy. What’s known in England as, "a science degree"].
Somehow Graham D. Warner does not specify which science or which honor class…and so once again wants to have his cake and eat it!
Meanwhile, Nate just runs over whatever verbal barricade he sets up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661663
This thread is becoming a true Climateball classic!
Little Willy, all I want is for people to stop saying I have no science background, when I do. I have absolutely no interest in appealing to my own authority though, so I refuse to specify. Those who want to appear as "a physicist", and thus expect to be taken seriously, no matter how ridiculous their arguments, really ought to be posting under their real name. So people can verify for themselves if the person really is a physicist, and in what areas of physics they are qualified, and can then judge if they wish to let that enter into their decision-making on the veracity of the supposed "physicists" arguments (it really shouldn’t enter into it at all, in any case, but there you go).
County name, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner may not be able to stop astute readers from wondering about his background by handwaving some BS with “honours.” He denies the greenhouse effect. He denies that the Moon spins. He can’t manage an energy balance model properly. He can’t even pair arrows from the simplest thought experiment ever.
Heck, he can’t even get the concept of doxing right. He doxed Nate. I did not dox him. We can grant him having some wild and violent fantasies, however. Not that his inspiration come purely from within:
[ME] No wonder he can’t sleep at night.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Too right. Some scary people on here.
Not that the lyrics have anything to do with any of these “scary people”…
More baiting blah blah from a deliberate irritant who lost every argument we ever had.
The county name, stalker?
Graham D. Warner doxed Nate. I did not dox him. Yet Graham D. Warner keeps calling me a “doxer.”
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
If what you did to me isn’t doxing then it sure as hell isn’t doxing what I did to Nate. I shared nothing that isn’t publicly available. His name he shared on here himself, and from that (and the knowledge that he claims to be a physicist) you can quite easily find the name of his University.
How did you find out the county name?
Graham D. Warner goes for the if-by-whiskey. He revealed identifying information about Nate. Doxing. Mentioning unidentifying information isn’t doxing.
Walter R. Hogle might have thought that this video was doxing:
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
When he knew that this video has been released by Graham D. Warner himself, then he backtracked to a “loose” sense. Graham D. Warner jumped in this exchange not even realizing which video it was about.
But then he had an old vendetta to settle, one at the origin of a smut song in which he portrays me as trying to kill him.
Oh, no. Not really. But perhaps, there are “weird people” here. And you know, art imitates life. But that song, which mentions the theme he keeps whining about for almost a week now, isn’t about me. To think otherwise makes me a narcissist.
Yeah, right.
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
“Graham D. Warner goes for the if-by-whiskey. He revealed identifying information about Nate. Doxing. Mentioning unidentifying information isn’t doxing.”
So…you mentioning my full name hundreds of times isn’t mentioning identifying information!? If you didn’t dox me, I didn’t dox Nate.
How did you find out my county name, if not by abusing your position of moderator at And Then There’s Physics?
Graham D. Warner already knows the answer to his silly leading question. He himself gave away that information. He still has that information fully disclosed on his socials. And he knows how to make me stop mentioning his name.
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
Yes, I know the answer. My full name is identifying information. It may be publicly available if you know where to look, but then so is the name of Nate’s University. Thus, if it is not doxing to reveal my full name on here because it is publicly available, then it is not doxing to reveal the name of Nate’s University. Once again, Little Willy…either we have both doxed, or we both haven’t doxed. Either way, you are by far and away the biggest offender at whatever you want to call the act of spreading identifying information about someone that is publicly available if you know where to look.
County name?
Graham D. Warner knows an answer. It’s not the answer I gave him. It’s not even sure he noticed it. Doesn’t matter. He’s not really asking a question anyway. And it’s not like he’s going to learn to read at his age.
But the most beautiful aspect of his current predicament is how hard he tries not to see the connection between his non-question and his smut song. That is beautiful. The purest art there is, something he might never get.
He sure likes to misinterpret the concept of doxing. But what about stalking? It’s as if he did not get that PSTering people was kinda stalkish.
Besides being a malevolent prick, is Graham D. Warner the most persistent stalker there has ever been at Roy’s?
Little Willy concedes the point that either we both doxed, or neither of us did. He concedes the point in his usual way, not directly (he lacks the integrity) but by thrashing about all over the place like some confused, squealing pig.
Now…how did you know my county name? You revealed that potentially identifying bit of information before I linked to my “moon does not rotate” song, so you couldn’t have found out through my YouTube channel. How about answering directly rather than some obscure mention of “Flop”, who certainly has nothing to do with it?
And so Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
He doxed Nate. I did not dox him. And he’s actually stalking me.
Perhaps I should write a song.
"He doxed Nate. I did not dox him"
Not according to the dictionary definition of the word. Either we have both doxed, or neither of us have. For the arguments, just scroll up to where I made them, yesterday. If you have any counter-argument, make it. Otherwise, I guess you concede by default.
County name?
Graham D. Warner backs off gaslighting to play silly semantic games.
He revealed identifying information about Nate. I did not reveal identifying information about him. Astute readers might also notice how he’s trying to equivocate between two situations not that the pet theme of his smut song clearly does not qualify as doxing.
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
"He revealed identifying information about Nate. I did not reveal identifying information about him."
My name, email address and county of residence are all identifying information, Little Willy. You revealed all that information to the regulars on this blog. They probably would not have been aware of it, if it weren’t for your incessant use of my full name.
All I revealed about Nate was the location of his University. His full name he had revealed himself.
As I said yesterday, if you want to make an excuse about the information being publicly available – the location of Nate’s University is also publicly available. Either we both doxed, or neither of us did.
County name, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner himself revealed his own name by publishing his own email. A county is not identifying information. And no – one can’t find an address using an IP, except the address of the Internet Provider itself.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner still leaks information that could lead people to guess his very specific address.
When will he patch that?
Never.
It’s so much of a thrill for him to entertain fantasies about “people down here” showing up to his door to break his neck.
Not that the fantasy targets me in any way, mind you.
That’s just art.
Graham. D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
"Graham D. Warner himself revealed his own name by publishing his own email."
Then Nate revealed his own University by publishing that information online, for anyone to find.
Little Willy, if you can’t take responsibility for your part in getting the information from a to b, don’t expect anyone else to.
"A county is not identifying information."
Sure it could be, when paired with a name.
"And no – one can’t find an address using an IP, except the address of the Internet Provider itself."
Maybe you can find a county name though, huh?
Is that what you did, Little Willy? How else did you find out the county name, given that it was prior to me posting the link that led you to my YouTube channel and all the stalking and doxing you did with that.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He himself linked to all his socials. Nate did NOTHING like that.
Graham D. Warner doxed Nate, whereas I did not dox Graham D. Warner.
And he keeps stalking me like the malevolent prick that he is.
No, Little Willy. I linked to a YouTube video. You stalked and doxed via my YouTube channel to get the info from linked artist pages to the regulars at this blog. Would they have found it themselves? Maybe, if they’d stalked. Not everyone is like that, though.
County name, stalker?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Take the video under consideration, which he missed at first when he started his actual stalking:
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
It has been published by one of his YT accounts:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZjvtK9Z5bEzJz8dEe2n_Q
On that page there is his FB page and his Spotify account.
Click on his FB link:
https://www.facebook.com/ChartmasterInfurion/
See? No doxing required. Everything is there.
In fact, everything is still there.
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent prick.
Everything is "still there" to find out Nate’s University, Little Willy. Why do you not understand that it’s exactly the same thing? Well, except that Nate had already given his own full name on this blog, himself, unlike me. Also different is the fact I only did it on one occasion, whereas you post my full name on here, incessantly. Every time you do it, you’re doxing.
The county name, stalker?
Graham D. Warner equivocates again. At this point it can only be for gaslighting purposes.
Nate did not publish his work place. Graham D. Warner doxed it.
Graham D. Warner did publish his own information. That’s on him.
It’s published on his University’s website, Little Willy. It’s not like I found it out on the dark web or something. If you search for, "Nate x [I’m not actually going to write out his full name, because I’m a decent human being] physicist America" it’s literally the first result that comes up, in Google. I mean…it’s just as easy as you clicking on my YouTube channel and finding my Facebook page. There’s no difference, Little Willy. Except in your imagination.
County name, stalker?
DREMT,
A BSc degree is no guarantee that you understand the science involved in rotations, orbits, and revolutions.
Could be a BS in Accounting or Business Management.
But a BA in Math or Physics would give the training required to understand the subject.
Or a well read farmer might do.
But the location of your drum kit might indicate your lack of scratch.
OK, bob.
Roy closed the comments to the 12/2017 thread.
I’m sure Walter R. Hogle appreciates Graham D. Warner’s equivocation:
It is Graham D. Warner who published that information here.
Just like he is the one who published his own personal information here.
Graham D. Warner is a malevolent dickhead.
It’s you who published my information on here, Little Willy. In fact, you keep doing it, every time you say my full name! You looked it up, then published it here. Same as I looked up Nate’s University, and published it here (on one occasion).
The difference is, I’m a decent human being. So, I don’t do it repeatedly.
Now, how did you find out the name of the county I live in, before you were even aware of my YouTube account?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He published this link here:
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
This link leads directly to his personal information.
Nate did not publish any link that leads to his U.
Graham D. Warner simply doxed him.
The malevolent prick!
Little Willy is hilarious. Somebody obviously forced him, at gunpoint, to click onto my YouTube channel, from the video, and then onto my Facebook page, to find out my full name, and then post it on here literally hundreds of times. In no way is he remotely responsible for any of those actions. By linking to a YouTube video, I have literally published my full name on here hundreds of times…myself!
And, since I did a Google search for someone who revealed their own full name, and who claims to be a physicist, and easily found their University, and put that on here on one occasion, that makes me a terrible doxer! Oooh, the shame! A dox on all your houses!
Little Willy, how did you find out my county name?
Main point: he’s actually pay attention to this thread.
*paying*
About time.
Little Willy, how did you find out the name of the county I lived in? Do you ever answer any questions?
Graham D. Warner is delicious. Somebody obviously forced him, at gunpoint, to dox Nate, and then to pretend that I doxed him when it’s all information he himself volunteered.
In no way is he remotely responsible for keeping the information there, for everyone to see. I has not other choice but to jump in an exchange in which Walter H. Hogle tried to rile me up, and follow up on his personal vendetta!
If only I could write a song about his whole experience…
Walter, do you know why Dr Spencer is closing those old articles for comments?
Little Willy, nobody forced me to post Nate’s University here. I looked back on the discussion recently and there was another reason why I did it, that I’d forgotten about. Nate accused Ed Berry of being a fraud. I now remember wondering if he’d be so bold with his accusations if he wasn’t hiding beneath some cover of anonymity. So, remembering that Nate had already posted under his full name before, I looked him up. Of course, there is also the reason that he often appeals to his own authority as a physicist. Anyway, it doesn’t excuse it, but there you go.
Who forced you to look up my info from the YouTube channel? Or post my full name hundreds of times? Or post a photo on here with my email address rather than just a link to the Facebook page? Or post endless links to my YouTube videos? Or abuse your position as moderator at ATTP to find out the county I lived in from my IP address?
Take some responsibility for your own actions, Little Willy.
County name, doxer?
Perhaps Walter R. Hogle could remind Graham D. Warner that there is a very simple way for him to patch what he presents as a vulnerability.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Graham’s comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any…
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
your guess is as good as mine.
reply to DREMT
It’s not actually just closed for comments, either. Up to about 2022, all the comments beneath the articles are wiped out. You can’t see them any more.
Not related to this then. Good.
I’d imagine some of the regulars here might be a little upset to learn that up to fourteen years of their comments have just been vaporised.
Anyone with a conscience should be happy that Nate isn’t doxed anymore. At least not directly on the website.
If only Graham D. Warner could grow a conscience and pick a real nickname…
County name, doxer?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Astute readers would imagine that he could have included himself as some of the regulars who could be a little upset. After all, he as been riling people here since at least seven years.
His daily mission to deny the obvious, vaporized.
#2
County name, doxer?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Grahams comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
#3
County name, doxer?
And so Graham D. Warner found himself another bridge.
Maybe this bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Tollbridge
#4
County name, doxer?
I prefer this bridge, Bob.
Two cyberbullies do their thing…
#2
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Graham’s comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any.
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
The cyberbullying continues…
This was before my YouTube channel was revealed, bob.
The victim playing continues…
Oh, don’t worry, you’re not very effective cyberbullies. Nevertheless, you are what you are.
#3
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Graham’s comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any.
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
See what I mean?
Sorry you are so butt hurt about your county.
You know it’s not an identifying piece of information.
How did he find it out, bob? That is the point.
That’s not a valid point, essentially irrelevant.
You might want to provide evidence he leaked the irrelevant bits before you posted you youtubes.
As if that matters.
But you can go on being butthurt.
"You might want to provide evidence he leaked the irrelevant bits before you posted you youtubes."
Astute readers will have noted that I already did, bob.
"But you can go on being butthurt."
I’m not remotely "butthurt", bob. In fact, if Little Willy would just acknowledge what he did, and apologise, I’d drop it for good. He won’t do that, though, and he won’t even explain how he got the information. That’s because it would involve admitting that he abused his position as moderator at ATTP.
#4
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Graham’s comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any.
Wouldnt that be ironic?
If Little Willy had a conscience, he might feel obliged to apologise…or at the very least, explain himself.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
I do have a conscience. In fact, if Graham D. Warner would just acknowledge pick a suitable nickname like he once had, and stop PSTering people, I’d drop it for good. He won’t do that, though, and he won’t even admit that I did not dox him. That’s because it would involve admitting that he’s enjoying his current victim playing so much that he wrote a song about it.
Little Willy claims he has a conscience, but won’t demonstrate it by explaining himself, or apologising. All he can do is attack others, as apparently he lacks the capacity to defend himself. The only thing he knows, is "attack".
Graham D. Warner claims he has a conscience, but won’t demonstrate it by picking up a decent nickname, or apologising for PSTering people. All he can do is gaslight, as apparently he lacks the capacity to show any kind of empathy. The only thing he knows, is victim playing.
I am not changing my name, and the people I ask to please stop trolling, should, if anything, apologise to the entire blog for their persistent trolling. Especially you, Little Willy.
Res ipsa loquitur.
#5
County name, doxer?
#5
County name, doxer?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
If he could own that he’s bypassing a ban by using a special encoding to use the T-word, that’d be great.
Perhaps he ought to thank Mike Flynn too!
#6
County name, doxer?
Graham D. Warner PSTered people for more than seven years; he kept PSTering people even after the t-word has been banned; he is still PSTering after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously”; he came here using an abusive handle name based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; now he has an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; he keeps trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; he denies having been castigated by Roy; he keeps resisting the simplest implications possible, and corrupts everything Team Science says and does; he just tried to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all he quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murderous thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
Those misdeeds remain unchecked, and he hasn’t admitted to them. They are still there to pollute the blog, and he persists. If he was person no. 2, like Gill, that would be his aim. To leave them there.
#7
County name, doxer?
DREMPTY,
Revealing the county you live in is not doxing.
So you are lying again, at least 7 times.
Looking up and posting my full name is doxing, bob. Every time he posts it, he is doxing.
Graham D. Warner suddenly switches his argument that has already been refuted a few times already. Does he forget that he himself revealed all his socials. Anyone could find his name and email simply by clicking on two links!
Perhaps he’s just annoyed to having been this dumb. But then, why doesn’t he plug what he presents as a security breach? It’s been two years now.
"Anyone could find his name and email simply by clicking on two links!"
But they didn’t, Little Willy. You did…and then you posted my full name on here, over and over again.
Silly doxer.
Plus, you abused your position as moderator at ATTP to find out the county I lived in from my IP address, before the YouTube video was even linked to.
You’re a stalker, and a doxer.
#8
County name, doxer?
#5
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Imagine if a commenter decided to take the name Graham’s Conscience (If He Had Any). Under that name, the commenter would keep responding to Graham’s comments, say to ask him to stop riling. Obviously, everyone would recognize that it’s not really Graham’s conscience. After all, it is far from clear that he has any.
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
#9
County name, doxer?
How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
— Conclusions
There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Suns activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.
In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right. —
Roughly agree. But I think cycle 25 could be less than 24.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/#more-31168
wee willy the scumbag posts under a nym but like the scumbag he is, he gets some sort of perverted enjoyment out of placing others in danger after he stalks them and posts their real names.
Not only a scumbag, but a total creep.
SpaceX’s BIGGEST Challenge: FULL Breakdown of Starship’s Heat Shield!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzxQgTE8mjs
And Chris mentions Starship refueling in orbit in 2025:
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1783876985401299002/photo/1
The first refueling even if less than 30 tons of rocket fuel [later it will be 200 tons] will be quite important milestone.