Chinese satellite filled with corrosive fuel will probably hit… the ocean

March 11th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Oh, boy. If only reporters checked with anyone who knows orbital mechanics before writing stories like this:

Chinese satellite filled with corrosive fuel could hit lower Michigan

The orbital decay of the Chinese space station Tiangong-1 will lead to its uncontrolled reentry around April. The green and yellow areas on the following map show where the satellite might hit…somewhere:

Now, because of the inclination of the orbit (the highest latitude it reaches), the yellow areas have a higher probability of being hit than the green area…per square mile. But the green area is a whole lot bigger than the yellow area.

As a result, past experience has shown that these satellites usually reenter over the ocean…usually the Pacific. It’s a really big area.

As the satellite falls, it encounters more atmospheric drag (anyone see the movie Gravity?) The resulting enhanced orbital decay then becomes very rapid, and the satellite burns up. But the point at which this happens is unpredictable. If the reentry prediction is off by, say, 50 minutes (a half orbit), the satellite will reenter on the opposite side of the Earth (!)

Here’s a recent reentry window forecast from the Aerospace Corporation…note the window is about 6 days wide. And, again… a 50 minute error in the prediction means the other side of the world:

So, to do a news story that the satellite might hit Lower Michigan… well… that takes an extra dose of either moxey or idiocy.


645 Responses to “Chinese satellite filled with corrosive fuel will probably hit… the ocean”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. TopTuna says:

    I have not read the news story but from what you have indicated it seems par for the course at the moment with the media world wide.
    Reporting what has happened or likely to happen truthfully seems to be off the media’s radar currently.
    The old adage, “Never spoil a good story with the facts” rings very true.
    Fake news . . . again.

    • Svante says:

      Yes, fake news again.
      Don’t trust media, politicians and … blogs.
      Check their sources.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Dr. Roy asks: “anyone see the movie Gravity?”

      I suppose some Congressional Committee will now subpoena Sandra Bullock to testify about the exact location the satellite will hit. Obviously, since she was in a movie about satellites, she’s an expert. ..

    • Mylo Henderson says:

      Media idiots. Sources they say they don t need no stinking sources.

  2. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Just another “the sky is falling” story to promote terror. They learned from Schneider I guess.

    • David Appell says:

      Fox News learned from Stephen Schneider. Sure.

      • michael hart says:

        Says the man who just quoted The Daily Mail.
        You’ll never get employed by The Guardian, David, if you even so much as mention the Mail.

    • David Appell says:

      Also, youre misquoting Schneider.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        davie, Steve didn’t attribute any quote, to anyone.

        Your paranoid delusion is affecting what remains of your brain, AGAIN.

        • David Appell says:

          Only 8 comments into this post and the insults and trolling begin.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, what are you whining about? Do you expect to come here and spread your bunkum, without being held responsible? When you spout nonsense you can only fool the fools. And, you can only fool some of them, some of the time.

            But, your desperate efforts are fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            Apparently you dont understand that its possible to disagree with people, and counter their arguments, without insults and taunts. Even my 10-year-old niece knows this. Insulting and taunting everyone while anonymous is especially low. If youre going to insult someone, at least be a man and do it under your real name.

          • AaronS says:

            Yea you guys should appreciate David, without him there would be less counter-points and less progress to your understanding. U all win more debates through the process of debate. He is the villain of your blog, but what good is a plot without a villian?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, you insult yourself. You’re the biggest troll here.

            I just point it out.

            Glad to help.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You overlook one minor point.

            If nobody cares what you think, why bother wasting your time? That would appear to be irrational and stupid, to say the least.

            What gives you the idea that you are influential enough that others might be swayed by what you say? Do you have some secret stash of power that everyone is completely unaware of, but works in some magical fashion?

            So press on. Play the whiny complainer card. Someone might sympathise, you never know.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “davie, you insult yourself. Youre the biggest troll here.
            I just point it out.”

            You never disprove *any* of the evidence and data I present.

            You only insult and taunt. In lieu of evidence or rational discussion.

            That’s all you have.

          • Svante says:

            I sympathize with David!

            He knows science and will not let falsehoods stand.
            There’s a lot of here so he has to be very quick, sometimes a bit too quick (ask me if you want an example).

          • David Appell says:

            MF is the other cyberbully here, who only taunts and insults people.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, I’ve explained that the Sun can NOT radiatively heat the Earth to 800,000K, as have others. I’ve explained that the Earth can NOT warm the Sun, as have others. I’ve explained that the imaginary “black bodies” can NOT violate 2LoT, as have others. I’ve explained that a racehorse is NOT “rotating on its axis”, as it runs an oval track.

            Your pseudoscience is WRONG. You just refuse to accept reality. You want to be a clown.

            That’s not my fault.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            If you feel I am taunting and bullying you, why don’t you just decline to feel bullied or taunted? Are you in the grip of uncontrollable masochistic tendencies?

            You might feel that I am to blame for your inability to bend others to your will.

            Maybe you are right – only you and I will ever know.

            Stand up for yoursel, and carry on, David.

            Cheers.

  3. Harry Cummings says:

    Will the steel tariff apply

  4. Morgan says:

    But that 50 minutes margin of error is all because of climate change, isnt it?

    If it hits the ocean, cant we plausibly say that climate change may have saved Chicago? Or at least Detroit?

  5. John F. Hultquist says:

    MSM do not want to miss the big story.
    Most of the writers would not understand the orbital chart.
    Thus, someone made up the story and a thousand others copied it.

    There is an analogy with those in the stock market that buy high and sell low.

  6. Mike Flynn says:

    But . . . but . . .

    Isn’t there a climatological principle here? If there is even a possibility that the satellite may cause harm to someone or something somewhere, shouldn’t we take action?

    Think of the whales, endangered species, and those of indeterminate gender and interesting personal predilections!

    Oh wait, it’s not Russian Phew, had me really, really worried for a moment!

    Cheerd.

  7. Steve Case says:

    SAVE THE DATES
    FRIDAY, September 7th
    SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH
    for
    SPUTNIKFEST 2018
    Manitowoc, Wisconsin

  8. David Appell says:

    Dr. Spencer, You must have some kind of map that distinguishes land and ocean as a function of latitude and longitude, right, since you quote monthly LT data for the NPole, USA48, Aust, etc.

    It is easy to figure out how much of the surface between 43 S and 43 N is ocean?

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      The AU BOM folks apparently used their computer to mine bitcoin.
      They go caught.
      That will free up the computer, so we could contact them for the calculation you suggest.

      On the other hand, I’m willing to let it stand that “. . . the green area is a whole lot bigger than the yellow area.”

    • Bohous says:

      I think there is slightly more than 7 times more ocean than land

      • Walt Allensworth says:

        71% of earth is covered by water.
        Therefore 29% by land.
        The ratio 71/29=2.45

        I.E. Water covers 2.45 times as much of the earth as does land.

      • Bohous says:

        Sorry, I made a mistake. It is 2.9 times more ocean.
        The correct way to calculate it is to take a Mollweide projection of earth (which equal area projection) with land and ocean in 2 colors, cut out the area between Toscana and New Zealand as a rectangle and calculate the number of pixels of different color.

  9. ren says:

    Sorry.
    These plot present time series (updated daily) of the current amount of water stored by the seasonal snowpack (cubic km) over North America.
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_swe.png

  10. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Let’s not forget they couldn’t even get a satellite off the ground before Bill Clinton let Lorel help.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      DW,

      Let’s also not forget that The Art of War by Sun Tzu is still required reading at Western military training institutions, as well as most of the rest of the world. Sun Tzu is not a Western name.

      The US hasn’t proven adept at winning Asian conflicts such as Korea (truce) and Vietnam (defeat – routed in panic.)

      If people choose to attack people on the other side of the world for no particular good reason, they have to be prepared to accept that the people on the other side of the world may not be happy.

      For example, even if the general opinion is that North Korean missile subs are inferior and use old technology, it is still a potential problem if you don’t know where 50 or 60 of them are, right now. Nations seem to love poking a sleeping bear with a sharp stick and then complaining if the bear remembers, and rips your arm off, one day while you are congratulating youself on your cleverness and awesome power.

      I prefer a quiet and content life. Many don’t seem to agree. I hope they don’t blame me if their beliefs bring them grief.

      All quite irrelevant and pointless, I know. Might even be stupid, according to some. Ah well.

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        M – you are rambling again. Be a good boy, take your tablets and go to bed.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr N,

          Carry on avoiding the science. It is most ardently to be desired, if perchance any person of influence happens to be lurking.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Carry on avoiding the science.”
            Like you did in your last 2 long, rambling, incomprehensible contributions (something about judges and poking bears) ?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Well, if you feel you must imitate me, go ahead. I appreciate the flattery, but it will still get you nowhere.

            But thank you for reading and taking notice. It always cheers me up to see I am capable of communicating ideas to even the most stupid, irrelevant and pointless members of society.

            I always do my best to assist the poor and the mentally afflicted.

            Keep reading my comments. Even if you are stupid and ignorant, your ignorance may be alleviated somewhat, and even your stupidity might go momentarily unnoticed, while you are trying to concentrate on comprehension of the English language.

            If it all becomes too much, lapsing into psychobabble might help.

            I wish you well.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Lets not forget they couldnt even get a satellite off the ground before Bill Clinton let Lorel help”

      I think warming skeptic Fred Singer was doing a lot about satellite launches before Bill Clinton’s era. He was an aeronautical engineer and an expert on rockets and satellites.

      https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer

      Another hi-level scientist who is skeptical of AGW propaganda. He co-authored a paper with Roger Revelle, in which Revelle, a highly regarded climate scientist, warned people not to read too much into anthropogenic warming.

      Al Gore learned about climate science from Revelle at Harvard. Apparently he was goofing off during lectures since he missed the message of Revelle. When the Singer-Revelle paper was published, Gore went ballistic, claiming Revelle had become senile and that Singer had manipulated him into making such statements.

  11. Entropic man says:

    The MSM suffer from the same problem as 90% of their readers; unable to distinguish between “possible” and “probable”.

    But then “It is possible but improbable that the satellite might hit Lower Michigan” sells few newspapers.

    • PpEntropic man says:

      As for saying “There is a 70% probability that the satellite will hit the ocean”.

      How many people understand percentages these days?

  12. ren says:

    Tropical storm is approaching the coast of Australia.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/auhl5tzgkv6g.png

    • Dr No says:

      Mike, maybe you should try altering the monkey’s diet. The bananas apparently cause an excess of brain farts.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr N,

        Keep at it. With a little more effort, you could almost become a troll. Stupidity might even become an asset.

        What do you think? Have you the talent, or are you ignorant to know?

        Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Whoops – again.

          Left out “too”.

          Where is Dr No, when I need him him to point out I missed something? Maybe he is too ignorant?

          Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”Mike, maybe you should try altering the monkeys diet. The bananas apparently cause an excess of brain farts”.

        Maybe you should stifle your Aussie ignorance. He contributes far more to this blog than you with your dimwit intrusions.

  13. ren says:

    “The nor’easter-producing machine of 2018 is cranking out yet another humdinger off the U.S. East Coast, this one likely to dump a foot or more of snow from Rhode Island to Maine from early Tuesday into Wednesday. With the spring equinox just a week away, it will take intense updrafts and heavy precipitation rates to chill the atmosphere enough for snow. However, that also means the white stuff may be pouring down at rates of 2” – 3” per hour in some places.”

    • ren says:

      Sorry.
      However, that also means the white stuff may be pouring down at rates of 2 3 inches per hour in some places.

  14. ossqss says:

    Sooooo, that fuel will not burn up in re-entry? Somebody needs to test their anti-satellite systems here. Why not?

    Dang, Musk could have used that Tesla, now garbage he shot into space, for a functional reason like bumper cars to deflect the threat, Oh well…..

    • Bart says:

      Titanium fuel tanks can potentially withstand the heat of reentry.

    • jimc says:

      It has been done:

      “Operation Burnt Frost was the code name given to the military operation to intercept and destroy a non-functioning U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite named USA-193.[1] The launch occurred on 20 February, 2008 at approximately 10:26 p.m. EST from the USS Lake Erie, which used a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) to shoot down the satellite. Only a few minutes after launch, the SM-3 intercepted its target and successfully completed its mission, by neutralizing the potential dangers the errant satellite originally imposed.[2] While the threat was mitigated, Operation Burnt Frost has received much scrutiny from other countries, mainly China and Russia.[3]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

  15. ren says:

    Nino 3 index is low. The wind is unfavorable for Australia.
    La Nina has strengthened recently. The BOM works with a delay.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png

    • AaronS says:

      This is exciting. I hope we get a 1998 1999 like La Nina. Just to rattle the system with cool global temperatures.

  16. ren says:

    The importance of Carbon dioxide
    When speaking of breathing, the first thing most people think about is the oxygen. But carbon dioxide is actually just as important, which not many people know about. Every cell in our body needs a certain concentration of dioxide emissions around 6.5 percent in order to maintain a normal life. When human life first began on the planet the atmosphere had a different composition than today, there were over 20 percent carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide concentration has fallen sharply, and now there is only three hundredths of a percent in the air. The human body has had to compensate for this gradual decline, and it has done so by creating an internal air environment in the small vesicles, the alveoli, inside the lungs.
    http://smart-breathe.com/carbon-dioxide/

  17. ren says:

    A snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.

  18. Dr No says:

    Talking of NASA, satellites and monkeys:
    NASA decided to send a shuttle into space with two monkeys and Paddy, the Irish astronaut, on board. After months of training, they placed all three in the shuttle and prepared for launch.

    Mission Control Center announced, “This is Mission Control to Monkey One. Do your stuff.”
    The first monkey began frantically typing and the shuttle took off.
    Two hours later, NASA’s mission control center announced, “This is Mission Control to Monkey Two. Do your stuff.”
    The second monkey started typing like mad and the shuttle separated from the empty fuel tanks.
    Another two hours later Mission Control Center announced, “This is Mission Control to Paddy… ”
    At this, Paddy shouted “I know, I know — feed the monkeys and don’t touch anything.”

    • ren says:

      “There’s barely a few parts of Queensland that haven’t been touched by storm activity in the last two to three weeks.”

      • wert says:

        I thought there was a permanent drought in Oz. It seems their efforts on wind and solar are finally paying back. The danger is not over yet though, as extreme weather may still appear as a result of carbon pollution. I suggest the water levels in reservoirs should be lowered so that Australia can handle the coming 1000-year floods that will be devastate the east coast each decade during the current century.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr N,

      And without Paddy, the mission could not succeed. Thank you for pointing out that those who appear to be the most important, are often completely useless, without the unsung hero who makes their existence possible.

      Consider Hanseun, Schmidt, Mann and the rest. All trained monkeys, who could not suceed, or maybe even feed themselves, by their own efforts – is it not so?

      Go Paddy!

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        M, it is just a joke. That is all. No need to analyze it.
        (Do OCD sufferers lack a sense of humour?)

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr n,

          I understand. It was very funny. I assume you, like myself, find our exchanges laughter inducing. Why else do it?

          As to jokes, did you hear the one about Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth?

          That one was incredibly funny! One long punch line!

          Keep the humor coming. I was in a Hogs Breath Cafe somwehere, and there was a saying on the wall – We aint never had too much fun! I

          I must admit that some of your humor escapes me. If you are not trying for a amusement, maybe you could specify which comments are not meant to be humorous? I assume you are not intending to insult or annoy, or give gratuitous offence, so rather than identifying your jokes, you might identify your non-jokes.

          I assume all your comments are intended as humorous. Am I wrong?

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            FYI: most of my comments are meant to “insult or annoy, or give gratuitous offence”.
            For some reason, that gives me a great sense of satisfaction.
            I suppose, while you suffer from OCD, I confess that I may have a touch of the psychopath about me.
            Maybe, one day, we could meet at a Hogs Breath Cafe somewhere and exchange notes.
            I could explain some of my humour, and you could explain some of your ramblings.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Unfortunately, you are as incompetent with your attempts insult, annoy or give gratuitous offense, as you are with most other things.

            That is why I assumed you were trying for humour. Even your attempt at psychopathy is incompetent. Who would be stupid enough to feel insulted or annoyed by your stupidity? Not me, and no other rational person. What would they gain?

            Oh well, if it gives you a great sense of satisfaction to immerse yourself in a fantasy, why not? Go on imagining you are a psychopath, rather than just stupid and ignorant.

            As to your humour, if you have to explain it, it just explains that you are as ignorant about humor as you are about most things.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Unfortunately, you are as incompetent with your attempts insult, annoy or give gratuitous offense, as you are with most other things.”
            Thank you. I take your response as an indication I have been successful.

            “As to your humour, if you have to explain it, it just explains that you are as ignorant about humor as you are about most things.”

            Don’t worry if it goes over your head – the rest of the class enjoy it.
            I suggest you and the monkey stick to comics.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no..”NASA decided to send a shuttle into space with two monkeys and Paddy, the Irish astronaut, on board”.

      The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported finding a skeleton up a tree near Manly. Turned out to be the Australian hide-and-seek champion.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        GR,

        Did you hear about the Irish tap dancer? He slipped into the sink and broke his leg.

        How do you confuse an Irish labourer? Show him a shed full of shovels and say *Take your pick.*

        I’ve got a million of ’em. Some more pathetic than others!

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          Given that Flynn is a common Irish family name, I have no doubt you do have a million jokes. Mostly derived from personal experience?

      • Dr No says:

        “..the Australian hide-and-seek champion.”
        Very good!

  19. ren says:

    The current temperature in Huntsville, AL.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/trfzd3u349u8.png

  20. jimc says:

    “There were no real trade-offs here; our gloom is largely self-imposed; and is entirely a function of our media and news diets.”

    “Pinker, for example, has no way to understand our current collective rage why arent we all ecstatic about such huge and continuing progress? unless he blames our gloom and grief and discontent on bad media. Its all the journalists and intellectuals fault for persuading people theyre sad when, in fact, theyre super-happy!”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/sullivan-things-are-better-than-ever-why-are-we-miserable.html

    • Svante says:

      True, it’s better than ever, just a few things left to fix…

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        Here’s a thought.

        Anything that needs fixing, declare war on it. For example, declare –

        War on drugs.
        War on poverty.
        War on terror . . .

        There. Fixed.

        Cheers.

        • Svante says:

          War on war? Alright, you have to be a bit clever about it.

        • Dr No says:

          War on stupidity?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Einstein said there are only two things which are infinite – the universe, and human stupidity.

            You encapsulate the second.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            Einstein also defined Insanity as:
            Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
            Do you ever get tired of repeating yourself?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            I don’t repeat myself. I leave that to the stupid, lazy, people – like David Appell. Posting links to the same graphic 50 or 100 times counts as doing the same thing over and over.

            Maybe you don’t know the definition of “same”. That would be because you are too ignorant to know it, and too lazy and stupid to look it up, I guess.

            Carry on. Time for some more stupid, irrelevant and pointless psychobabble, perhaps? Try to claim credit for the touch of the psychopath you claim to possess – that might impress other stupid people.

            Off you go now. Try to convince yourself that I allow myself to feel annoyed, insulted or offended if I choose not to! Stupid, just stupid, but you can’t accept it can you? Why would I choose to be otherwise than content?

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Try to convince yourself that I allow myself to feel annoyed, insulted or offended ..”
            As Shakespeare wrote (Hamlet):
            “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            I don’t protest much at all. Maybe you are getting your fantasies confused?

            You are probably deeply immersed in a fantasy where you are important, and my care factor exceeds zero.

            Carry on. Try really, really, hard, and you might convince yourself of your own importance.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            Your honour, I rest my case.

          • Mike Flynno says:

            Dr N,

            You rest your case of supreme stupidity. I don’t blame you one bit. Case proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Next case!

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Shakespeare, didn’t he write that play about climategate,
            “much ado about nothing”.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            There is actually a play called Kill Climate Deniers. From the publicity –

            “Kill Climate Deniers centres on a militant cell of eco-activists that takes the audience hostage during a concert at Parliament House.”

            Imagine the howls of outrage from CO2 AGW supporters if someone attempted to stage a play called “Kill Self Styed Climate Scientists”!

            Shakespeare had the right idea. In Henry VI, he wrote “”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.”

            There were no “climate scientists” to poke fun at in Shakespeare’s day, so he had to make do with lawyers.

            Cheers.

  21. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…”So, to do a news story that the satellite might hit Lower Michigan well that takes an extra dose of either moxey or idiocy”.

    Along the lines of NOAA claiming a 48% confidence level that 2014 was the hottest year ever then GISS better them by claiming a 38% CL.

    • Dr No says:

      GR, give it a rest.
      Is that all you can talk about?
      Face up to the fact that nobody is interested in your poor grasp of statistics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”GR, give it a rest.
        Is that all you can talk about? Face up to the fact that nobody is interested in your poor grasp of statistics”.

        ************

        Interesting. An alarmist thinks it’s ok to reduce confidence levels from an accepted 90% level to 48% and 38% to move 2014 into first place.

        Why do you suppose NOAA and GISS would need to do that? I mean, what would interest them enough to deceive the public like that, unless they are climate alarmists themselves?

        And what could possibly compel you to support such chicanery? What is your angle here, it certainly isn’t science? If it was, you’d be as concerned as me about major institutions lying about catastrophic global warming.

        • Dr No says:

          G, please try and let it go.
          The ranking of 2014 is not the end of the world.
          If it would help you, we can agree to rank it second or third or whatever. Now, how does that change matters? – no. The rate of warming continues unabated.
          See how you are making an inordinate fuss over a triviality?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr N,

          I am sure you want to ignore inconvenient facts. You also want others to ignore them too. Good luck with that.

          The ranking of 2014 is, indeed, not the end of the world, and neither is the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. You seem to believe that one is more important than the other.

          The fact that both statements are delusionary seems not to concern you at all. This is no doubt because you are both stupid and ignorant.

          The fact that Gavin Schmidt is a trained mathematician, yet still accords a probability of 0.38 (less than the probability of a successful coin toss) as near certainty, demonstrates the level of his incompetence. His initial defence of his bizarre assessment demonstrates the depth of his delusion.

          It is obvious why you would want someone to pretend the matter didn’t happen – but it did, and cannot be unhappened.

          Next, you be telling all and sundry to ignore the inconvenient fact that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist! CO2 AGW enthusiasts do not see the need for the scientific method, but real scientists do.

          Another inconvenient fact.

          Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr N,

      Demands, demands!

      Why should he listen to a self admitted lazy, stupid, psychopath?

      Are you dressed in your Nazi regalia, complete with whip? Maybe GR is terrified by your awesomeness – what do you think?

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        What do I think?
        I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Nazi regalia and whips.
        I am fairly liberal-minded, but your apparent fetish may need treating.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr N,

          I thought you were an admirer of the guy that run SkS. Are you telling me this is not so?

          Or you could just parrot some more psychobabble if you think it makes you sound as though you are intelligent.

          Choices, choices, eh?

          Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Fat finger syndrome strikes again – should be “runs” of course.

            Oh well, at least the apostrophic and quotist gods appear to be smiling on me again.

            Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          Stop! I don’t really need to know what you are doing with your fingers when you are indulging your fetish fantasies.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Why not? I thought it would be right up something of yours!

            Are you sure you didn’t mean to say”don’t stop”? That would be about right for a purveyor of psychobabble.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            I am getting worried you are developing an unhealthy attitude towards my good self.
            Do I need to take out a restraining order?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Whether you choose to restrain yourself is your affair.

            Whether you need to be ordered to do so, is something only you can decide.

            Are you really so stupid you cannot work that out for yourself, or are you just pretending?

            Cheers.

  22. ren says:

    Today very cold air moves over the Great Lakes.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/pxcig510h4el.png

    • ren says:

      On Friday, center of strong high will be located above Scandinavia.
      Frost will return to Central Europe.

  23. Dr No says:

    Vale Stephen Hawking

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no…”Vale Stephen Hawking”

      Vale???

      Sorry to see the old guy go, especially after the tremendous physical burden he endured much of his life. Even though I disagreed with his views on reality, it’s sad to see his life end.

      In the Climategate emails, Phil Jones of Had-crut found the death of Australian skeptic, John Daly, ‘cheering’. He made the comment to Michael Mann in email 1075403821. It can be viewed in the following analysis on actual page 51 (62 of 182 on pdf), in which he is informed of Daly’s death then comments, “In an odd way, this is cheering news”.

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

      I have stayed away from hyper-critical comments about Jones in the past but this prompts me to label him a creep. There is something fundamentally wrong with Jones, as with his alarmist peer group, and he should have been prosecuted for his confessions in the Climategate emails.

      He admitted in another email that he and Kevin would ensure certain skeptic papers did not reach peer review at the IPCC reviews. Major creep.

      Jones also argues that it is not right to release data as proposed by McKittrick. What is this creep really hiding at Had-crut?

      • Dr No says:

        “Vale??? – it is synonymous with “farewell”.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”Vale??? it is synonymous with farewell”.

          Never heard vale used in such a manner, normally it means valley. I think someone screwed up somewhere, confusing ‘vale of tears’ with the sorrow of tears.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            GR,

            I suspect that he’s using a Latin word out of context, in order to look clever There is a Latin phrase “ave atque vale”, my rough translation being “hail and farewell”.

            Sometimes people use cryptic bits of obscure languages in an attempt to appear clever and intelligent. Journalists, bindidon, La Pangolina, Dr No, and others do this.

            They generally cheer, and loudly cry “Gotcha” when somebody asks for clarification. Dr No didn’t cry “gotcha”, but couldn’t help attempting to confuse, trying to be clever.

            Just shows how stupid, (even if his motives were pure), he is.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Wiktionary etymology 2, Interjection, vale:
            (usually seen in obituaries) Farewell.

        • Dr No says:

          Sorry, no attempt at being a “smart-arse”.
          Vale is used commonly in Australia in relation to an obituary.

          • Dr No says:

            BTW, what sort of low-life can take a statement such as
            “Vale Stephen Hawking”
            and turn it into a pathetic diatribe. You are seriously damaged.

          • Mike Flynno says:

            Dr N,

            You are really into celebrity worship. You probably think Leonardo Di Caprio is related to Leonardo da Vinci.

            Or that Gavin Schmidt is a world renowned scientist, famous for his discovery of the Schmidt Effect!

            Keep the jokes coming.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Wiktionary etymology 2, Interjection, vale:
            (usually seen in obituaries) Farewell.

      • Dr No says:

        There is a world of difference between Hawking and anybody else.
        Hawking’s motives were pure.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”There is a world of difference between Hawking and anybody else. Hawkings motives were pure”.

          Can’t argue with that, I respected him for his dedication despite his physical burden. I do think he missed the mark somewhat, confusing theory with reality.

          I think most scientists become so immersed in the process that they don’t take the time to understand the limitations of the human mind. You should read the dialogs between physicist David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti to get what I’m on about.

          Left to its own devices, the human mind will confuse thought with the reality it is observing. I gave an example of the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky being confused with the fact it is our angular momentum that is causing that illusion.

          I don’t think Hawking was aware of the implications of what he was claiming re the Big Bang. For something to appear out of nothing, especially with the vastness of the current universe, is ludicrous. Yet he talked about it as if it really happened.

          I think he was seriously lacking in awareness and that’s quite possible in academic circles where the product of thought is worshipped. It gets to a point where a person is applauded for his thoughts alone rather than the veracity of the content of the thought. When one becomes immersed in thought, and believes it, one is in danger of illusion.

          • Dr No says:

            Did you know that Jiddu suffered from delirious ramblings?
            Probably similar to those you suffer.

          • Mike Flynno says:

            Dr N,

            Come along there, laddie.

            The cryptic sayings thing has passed its use-by date. Who would be bothered looking it up?

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            These hard choices keep coming up.

            Before it was g*e*r*a*n vs. NASA and all University Astronomy departments.

            Now it’s Gordon vs. Steve Hawking on the origins of the Universe.

            What to think?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            svante, where is the evidence that you can “think”? And I’m using the word as “process logic”.

            “Believing” is NOT “thinking”.

          • Svante says:

            You can’t proclaim that for yourself g*e*r*a*n.

            Conversely, you may be unable to realize that you are out of your mind.

          • Svante says:

            Generally speaking of course.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            (I missed this. He was already shady, but I hadn’t completely realized it yet.

            Hilarious.)

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr N,

          As were Trofim Lysenko’s and Lord Kelvin’s. However Lysenko’s belief in vernalisation, and Lord Kelvin’s belief in caloric, turned out to be unsupportable. That’s science for you.

          Until capable of testing by experiment, speculations, no matter how seemingly elegant or logical, remain speculations.

          You won’t agree, I’m sure. You’ll be wishin’ and hopin’ and prayin’ that the mad idea that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter magically comes true.

          Nope. No miracles. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis in sight, is there? Just continuing faith.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “the mad idea that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter ”
            Endless repetition of this his mantra of yours is a symptom of your OCD.
            It also points to your ignorance since it has been explained why you are sooooo wrong many times.

          • Mike Flynno says:

            Dr N,

            Unfortunately, nobody can actually produce a testable GHE hypothesis.

            Anybody claiming to be able to explain the operation of a non describable effect is quite deluded.

            Some would say barking mad! What’s your excuse – ignorance, stupidity, or both?

            Cheers.

      • Svante says:

        Phil Jones:

        He insisted he had no intention of resigning, but expressed regret at any any “upset or confusion” caused by the emails which, he said, contained “poorly chosen words in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated”.

        He responded to criticism about the UEA’s failure to public raw data on land temperatures, despite a number of Freedom of information requests, saying that the information was drawn from organisations all around the world and CRU had signed agreements with them not to release it.

        “That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice,” he said. “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

        • Svante says:

          Is it not obvious that they obstructed FoI requests because they were feeling harassed and unfairly attacked.

          • Svante says:

            It’s a common MO:

            https://tinyurl.com/y95k6mfa

            “In the political sphere, science simply becomes another kind of argument. Some conservatives see climate science as a threat to limited government, so instinctively they make a counterargument. The actual science is an inconvenience, a weak point in the argument that can be covered up by quoting embarrassing emails. In the world of politics, scientists matter not because of their commitment to discovery, but because of their role as cannon fodder.”

            I say there is something wrong with your ideology if it can’t be pragmatic about a plain old market failure.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Is it not obvious that willful obstruction of FoI requests just because you are feeling harassed and unfairly attacked is unlawful?

            Oh dear – they felt harassed – poor darlings. Too sensitive by ‘alf, eh?

            Unfair attacks as well? Shock, horror! How dare anybody ask us to produce a testable GHE hypothesis! The nerve of the blighters!

            I appreciate your attempt at humour. Some might not.

            Keep it up.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            I agree Mike, wrong but understandable.

            They saw it as dishonest slander. It continues to this day.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    Here is Phil Jones of Had-crut in another Climategate email marked ‘highly confidential’ to Michael Mann. This time he is taking shots at Ross McKitrick, part of the Canadian team of statisticians who debunked Mann’s hockey stick propaganda.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

    Page (70 0f 182)… actual page page 59:

    “The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbageas you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as wellfrequently, as I see it. I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehoweven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    Here are two creeps criticizing a journal editor for releasing a scientific paper by a professor of economics and a skeptical climate scientist, who was the Virginia state climatologist. The creeps also take a shot at highly regarded scientist Roger Pielke.

    Then creep Jones goes over the top, threatening that he and Kevin will keep the skeptic’s papers out of the IPCC review. That’s a serious abuse of power amounting to scientific misconduct, yet the cheaters who ran the tribunal investigating Jones completely overlooked it.

    Jones is a Coordinating Lead Author partnered with Kevin Trenberth on IPCC reviews. He should have been immediately discharged by the IPCC but they kept him around. Shows how corrupt they are as well.

    • Dr No says:

      For goodness sake!
      Nobody is interested in digging up an issue from a decade ago.
      Your obsession with Jones is your problem.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”For goodness sake!
        Nobody is interested in digging up an issue from a decade ago.
        Your obsession with Jones is your problem”.

        Jones is still head of Had-crut and he and his cronies are still likely interfering with peer review and misleading the public. As long as those cheaters are doing their dirty deeds I will keep dragging up proof from Climategate.

        I notice it upsets you to have the truth dragged up from a decade ago, as if it has somehow been washed clean.

        • Dr No says:

          (A)
          “Jones is still head of Had-crut and he and his cronies are still likely interfering with peer review and misleading the public. ”
          Absolute, unsupportable rubbish.
          (B)
          “I notice it upsets you to have the truth dragged up from a decade ago, as if it has somehow been washed clean.”
          All accusations have been answered and Michael Mann has been vindicated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”(A)
            Jones is still head of Had-crut and he and his cronies are still likely interfering with peer review and misleading the public.
            Absolute, unsupportable rubbish.
            (B)
            I notice it upsets you to have the truth dragged up from a decade ago, as if it has somehow been washed clean.
            All accusations have been answered and Michael Mann has been vindicated”.

            **********

            All your comments prove…and conclusively…is that you are seriously delusional and in utter denial of facts.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Mann vindicated? Of what, and by whom?

            He claimed to be a Noble Laureate in court documents. That would make him stupid.

            Who has ever demonstrated otherwise?

            He claims to be able to determine temperatures from trees. I say thats unsupported and demonstrable nonsense. Even you don’t believe it!

            Who has ever been prepared to assert that Michael Mann has a first class mind? No one, that’s who!

            Throw yourself at Michael Mann’s feet, saying “I am not worthy, oh Mighty hockey stick maker!”

            That should make you both feel happy. Stupid and stupider.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            Some facts:
            “Mann’s findings have been independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Gee. A consensus. How surprising.

            Are you as stupid as you appear?

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            It is interesting to see so many symptoms on display:
            The refusal to accept facts, the fevered imagining of conspiracies everywhere, the incessant whining about perceived poor treatment, the hatred of just about everyone on the face of the Earth, the obvious loneliness, the refusal to accept help .so sad.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr N,

        Jones’ obsession with hiding publicly funded data, and his demonstrated incompetence is everyone’s problem, wouldn’t you say? Vast amounts of public money have been wasted, following the delusional thinking of the ragtag crowd of fumbling bumblers describing themselves as climate scientists!

        Tens of billions of US dollars have been spent, achieving precisely nothing of measurable benefit to humanity.

        This is science? No, it’s delusional nonsense.

        Carry on trying to ensure those gullible suckers (the taxpayers) are kept in the dark. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, can you?

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          “Tens of billions of US dollars have been spent, achieving precisely nothing of measurable benefit to humanity.”
          Its even worse:
          “In January 1961, US President Dwight D Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Mike…”Jones obsession with hiding publicly funded data, and his demonstrated incompetence is everyones problem, wouldnt you say?”

          The scary part is that Jones, Mann, Trenberth and their cronies are essentially running the IPCC, which advises politicians. Behind the scenes with their cronies via email they felt free to reveal a questionable side to themselves both personally and scientifically that are not revealed to politicians.

          The public is being hoodwinked and the politicians representing them keep on swallowing the bs served up by these charlatans.

          • professorP says:

            Interesting.
            Unlike Mr Flynn, you may be suffering a dose of:
            “Paranoia is the irrational and persistent feeling that people are ‘out to get you’. The three main types of paranoia include paranoid personality disorder, delusional (formerly paranoid) disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Carry on with the psychobabble. Cut and pasting might make you feel better, but it’s hardly an indication of superior intelligence.

            Even if it were, it still doesn’t stop you from being stupid, does it?

            Just look at the number of self styled “climatologists” with PhDs, who stupidly believe that endlessly poring over old temperature records gives them the power to perceive the future!

            How stupid does that seem? About as stupid as the people who believe that “climatologists” can see into the future?

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “Just look at the number of self styled climatologists with PhDs”
            Do you have a problem with people who have earned PHDs?
            I suspect there are some unresolved envy issues here.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”Paranoia is the irrational and persistent feeling that people are out to get you.”

            Paranoia is about irrational fear that is way out of proportion. I have offered hard evidence to back my claims and no alarmist can rebut them with other than ad homs.

            I thought a professor would understand the difference between paranoia and hard fact, then again, you have not the slightest idea about science and physics so why would that be a surprise?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”Do you have a problem with people who have earned PHDs?”

            Not me, Roy is a Ph D as is John Christy of UAH, I respect both.

            Having a Ph.D is not an indicator of expertise per se. It depends how the person earning the Ph.D came about the degree, whether he/she butt-kissed his/her way to it as a yes man/woman.

            John studied under Kevin Trenberth as a grad student and went on to find evidence that contradicts what he learned under Trenberth. That speaks volumes for the man. He had the integrity to speak up and he was man enough to face the backlash. That takes a certain kind of person as it does with Roy.

            John has also reported on IPCC reviews where he served as a lead author and reviewer. He testified as to the conduct of several he had encountered who went to reviews with pre-conceived conclusions. They likely all had Ph.Ds. Arrogance and ego can easily undermine a Ph.D.

            I cannot say the same for alarmist Ph.Ds as for Roy and John. They former whine and back-stab offline and the reason we know that is the Climategate emails. They try to interfere with peer review when studies oppose them and they cheat. They have ganged up on the satellite data to discredit it.

            Ph. D means nothing if the person behind it is a self-serving idiot hung up on a paradigm.

            It seems you may have one, earned along that line. It’s likely in anthropology or arts.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            All the suspicion in the world, plus a few dollars, might enable you to purchase a cup of coffee.

            I suspect your suspicion is worth what I just paid for it – nothing.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “Paranoia is about irrational fear that is way out of proportion. I have offered hard evidence to back my claims and no alarmist can rebut them with other than ad homs.”
            That is exactly what a paranoid person would say.
            My offer to help still stands.

          • Mike Flynno says:

            p,

            What might give you cause to think I might envy stupid people like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann? In any group of people with PhDs, there has to one who is dumber or more stupid than all the others.

            Where is your proof that Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann are not the dumbest or most stupid of their class (in the wide sense)?

            Can you find someone who would willingly admit to being more stupid or dumb than either?

            Why would I envy the most stupid person in the room? Would you?

            Try some more psychobabble. That might work better for you.

            Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          “Phil Jones temporarily stepped aside from Director of the CRU in November 2009 following a controversy over e-mails which were taken and published by person(s) unknown. The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry concluded that there was no case against Jones for him to answer.
          He was reinstated in July 2010 after a further review led by Sir Muir Russell found no fault with the “rigour and honesty as scientists” of Jones and his colleagues”
          BTW: Your mad obsession has blinded you to the fact that he retired in 2016.

          • professorP says:

            I can help you if you are cooperative.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Keep up the stupid, pointless and irrelevant psychobabble if it provides solace and keeps you calm.

            You have no doubt heard the exhortaion “Physician, heal thyself”.

            Sage words indeed.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            I see, you do not wish to be helped. Is that why you are uncooperative?
            Were you like this as a child?

          • Dr No says:

            pP, That was a nice quote you uncovered.
            Don’t expect your two patients to respond though.
            They love to live in their delusional worlds.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Keep the psychobabble going, lads.

            With a bit of practice, you might be able to avoid facing reality totally. Good luck.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry concluded that there was no case against Jones for him to answer”.

            Hilarious!!! Jones was heard by idiots who had a conflict of interest.

            1)the University of East Anglia were allowed to submit the questions asked of Jones. Do you think a university trying to protect it’s image would ask questions such as:

            a)Mr. Jones…did you say there was something cheerful about the death of John Daly?

            b)Did you threaten to boycott skeptic papers submitted to the IPCC?

            c)did you admit to using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures?

            d)do you think it’s improper to release your data for independent verification?

            e)have you amended historical data and destroyed the originals?

            f)did you advise your email partners to boycott the FOI request by Steve McIntyre? If so, what are you hiding?

            There were three different hearings. The one to which you refer was not really performed. The UK government was facing an election and did not have the time.

            In another hearing, they called Lord Blaby who knew nothing about the chicanery of Jones. Steve McIntyre, who was an expert on Jones could have destroyed him but he was not called to testify.

            A possible interaction between the U of EA and Jones:

            UEA…Mr. Jones…why don’t you want Steve McIntyre to have your data?

            Jones…whine, whine…he’ll use it against me.

            UEA…do you have proof?

            Jones…he did it to Mikey.

            UEA…what we are trying to ascertain is whether you have anything to hide. Did you or did you not fudge the data and tear up the old manuscripts?

            Jones…Can I take the 5th?

          • Dr No says:

            G,
            you are still fighting old battles that were lost ages ago.
            Nobody is interested let alone listening (except maybe your fellow inmate MF).

          • Mike Flynno says:

            p,

            And possibly the US Govt. It seems to have markedly reduced the flow of swill to the trough. Snouts will no doubt run dry in the fullness of time.

            A start has been made on reducing emotive references to the natural phenomenon of changing climate which has been occurring since the creation of the Earth .

            As you intimate, trying to fight battles which have been lost is pointless. Nobody in power seems to be listening. Maybe in your fantasy, Hillary Clinton is President, and Gavin Schmidt is a widely respected climate scientist.

            Alas, reality is that which persists, even when you stop believing it.

            Go your hardest. Raise your banner high, and lead the charge against the climate changing!

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”you are still fighting old battles that were lost ages ago”.

            You are missing the point. You alarmist idiots, in the here and now, justify such corruption. You are so immersed in your dogma you cannot differentiate scientific misconduct from scientific integrity.

          • professorP says:

            Both you guys seem to have a fixation on the myth “Climategate”.
            profP would say you both exhibit OCD symptoms in that you cannot let it go.
            Let’s play a little game.
            Let’s assume Phil Jones owned up to misconduct and was sanctioned.
            Or even let’s assume he was run over by a bus.
            Do you really, really imagine that this would alter anything? (After all, the surface temperatures have kept rising, the UAH temperatures are rising, sea ice is disappearing, Greenland is melting, sea levels are rising etc etc etc.)
            The answer must be, to anybody with an ounce of logic, a definite “no”.
            So, your obsessions are both erroneous and of little significance either way.
            Go away and find another hobby that is more productive.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            In response to your demand – no.

            Cheers.

  25. ren says:

    Is sea ice in Antarctica will return to “normal” this year?
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/samndsxi2qf4.png

  26. Curious George says:

    Why lower Michigan and not Hollywood? How unfair.

    • Dr No says:

      Why not Club Mar-a-Lago ?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      CG,

      It’s well known that film stars are the guardians of the world – all knowing, all powerful, and desirous of worship in all their multitudinous aspects – somewhat like the Hindu Gods.

      No Chinese satellite would dare strike such an accumulation of raw intellectualism, surely.

      Cheers.

      • professorP says:

        You really don’t like anybody, do you?
        In your world only you are sane, wise and rational – Am I correct?

        • Mike Flynno says:

          p,

          If you say so, p, if you say so.

          (I’ll humour the lad – it keeps him happy).

          Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          Deep down, you don’t even like yourself. Am I right?
          I can still help you.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”I can still help you”.

            And make him like you??? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

            Hilarious!!!

            Psychologists don’t help anyone become sane, they simply fit them back into a neurotic world. You are offering to fit Mike into your lunacy.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            When all seems lost, resort to psychobabble. Now, don’t you better?

            No?

            That’s just because you’re stupid. Poor diddums.

            Off you go then!

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Argh! Too much laughter! My bad!

            Of course, I meant –

            Now, don’t you feel better?

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            G,
            “Psychologists dont help anyone become sane, they simply fit them back into a neurotic world.”
            Is that your experience? If so, I apologise for our failure to help you.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Is your apology worth any more than your suspicions or your opinions?

            I suspect not, but of course i’ll apologise if my opinion is wrong.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Sorry gentlemen. No more free consultations.
            From now on you will have to ring my secretary and make an appointment.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Quite obviously, your opinion is worth what anybody is prepared to pay for it – nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero . . .

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            professorP says:
            “No more free consultations”.

            Pity, your approach was more appropriate than previous attempts at curing the symptoms, although I think you overlooked the split personality problem (Flynn/Flynno).

  27. Mike Flynn says:

    Possibly a salutary lesson from Stephen Hawking.

    After steadfastly holding a theory about black holes for 40 years or so, about 4 years ago Hawking said that it was the biggest blunder of his scientific career.

    From media of the day –

    “Dr. Stephen Hawkings recent statement that the black holes he famously described do not actually exist underscores the danger inherent in listening to scientists, “.

    Strangely enough, I incline to the Hawking’s original view. The supposed paradox which caused him to change his view, doesn’t actually exist, in mine.

    So what to believe? Hawking’s views firmly held for 40 years, or Hawking’s views firmly held for 4 years or so?

    Both remain speculation, as far as I know.

    Einstein had a similar problem. He thought he was wrong, introduced a “cosmological constant” to correct his perceived error, then later discovered he was right all along!

    There’s no shame in admitting you thought you were wrong. I do it in a flash, if new information arises. Sometimes you even think you are wrong, but turn out to be right after all.

    It’s a funny old world, isn’t i?.

    Cheers.

    • Dr No, says:

      Stephen Hawking:
      “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr N,

        Absolutely correct. Stupid climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

        What an insane notion!

        Cheers.

        • Dr No, says:

          “Good day Mr Flynn”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “And how is Mrs Flynn?”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “And how is your pet monkey?”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “I see it is going to rain this afternoon”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “Did you see that new movie about the 3 billboards?”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “Knock knock- Anybody home?”
          Reply:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “Nurse ratched! Come over here!”
          MF:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “Mike urgently needs his injection”
          MF:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”

          “There there, off to sleep we go”
          MF:”climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!________ZZZZZ”

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr N,

          Climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Complete nonsense. No GHE.

          More psychobabble, please.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No, says:

            Your mantra is simply a manifestation of wishing and praying rather than logic.
            Go on, say it again. We love laughing at children who do this.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            If you insist.

            Climatologists claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Complete nonsense. No GHE.

            More psychobabble, please.

            Who says I don’t give you what you want?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Oh dear! Oh dear!

            Has the nasty Donald refused to bow to your commands?

            Stopped acceding to your incessant demands for money?

            Refused to be intimidated by your irrelevant and meaningless psychobabble?

            What a pity! Maybe you could have a tantrum, and refuse to have anything further to do with the nasty Donald! That’ll fix him, eh?

            Stupid.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No, says:

            Sorry M. I have to go now. My sock drawer needs re-arranging (amongst other tasks).
            Let’s talk about Donald another time (preferably after he gets the boot).

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr N,

            Once again, no.

            What part of no do you not understand?

            Did you spend years of intensive study to achieve your current level of stupidity, or Do you have a natural talent?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Is that your experience? If so, I apologise for our failure to help you.

    • David Appell says:

      “No, Stephen Hawking Did *NOT* Say Black Holes Don’t Exist,” Gizmodo 2/1/14
      https://gizmodo.com/no-stephen-hawking-did-not-say-black-holes-dont-exist-1513870928

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Da,

        Learn to read. That’s not what I said, is it? You are just being stupid, as usual.

        If you want to tell me I’m wrong, and why, feel free. Telling me that something I never said is wrong, is just stupid, irrelevant and pointless.

        If you prefer, read what Hawking said – you won’t believe him, either will you? You’ll no doubt commune with the dead, and tell us what he really meant to say, not what he said.

        Off you go, David. Learn to read, and comprehend.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          “All of this stems from a short paper Hawking submitted on January 22nd, titled “Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes.” And yes, the phrase “there are no black holes” appears in that paper. But there isn’t a period at the end of it. In full, it states “there are no black holesin the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity. There are, however, apparent horizons which persist for a period of time.”

          https://gizmodo.com/no-stephen-hawking-did-not-say-black-holes-dont-exist-1513870928

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Read what I wrote. You haven’t, but you’re presumably complaining anyway. Your comment is irrelevant, pointless and stupid, if you are implying it has meaningful relation to what I wrote.

            I guess that’s why you refuse to quote me verbatim.

            If you aren’t complaining, but actually agreeing that what I said is true, let me know. It’s shouldn’t be my problem if your reading skills are defective, should it?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Another gotcha?
            I couldn’t care less what you think.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I am most gratified to hear that you don’t care what I think. This is why I generally supply facts. Others can make up their own minds after their own research.

            My opinion is worth what anybody is prepared for it – here, that is precisely nothing.

            However, I have been made aware that from time to time, people change their views, and see the logic of my arguments, based on their own assessment of facts. Even decision makers, on occasion.

            The motto of the British Royal Society translates roughly as “Take nobody’s word for it”.

            Seems reasonable to me.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Keep up the stupid, pointless and irrelevant psychobabble if it provides solace and keeps you calm.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I’m told that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for demonstrating the sincerity of your misguided attempt at flattery.

            It won’t do you any good, of course.

            You will remain stupid, regardless of what I think.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Maybe you cant find anything with which to disagree? Have you managed to find the hypothesis which explains things which you assert dont need explaining anyway?

            All very mysterious.

            Cheers.

  28. ren says:

    The arctic air is spreading in Central Europe.

  29. ren says:

    Very high levels of galactic radiation in high latitudes.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

  30. Dr No says:

    But before I go, I must share this news item I have just uncovered. This true, I kid you not!:
    “An elderly man who turned up in an emergency department in Northern Ireland after a series of falls has stunned doctors who found a huge air-filled cavity where part of his brain should have been.
    The 84-year-old was referred to A&E by his doctor after several months of feeling unsteady on his feet and experiencing falls, and three days of weakness in his left arm and leg.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/15/doctors-stunned-to-find-huge-air-pocket-where-part-of-mans-brain-should-be

    A prize for anybody who can identify this unfortunate person.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr N,

      Not unknown

      “A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life – despite damaging 90 percent of his brain – is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.”

      Or –

      “Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain”

      And so on. No, you don’t get a prize, either.

      Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mike…”Not unknown

      A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life despite damaging 90 percent of his brain is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.”

      Read about a little girl in Scotland who had all of her brain missing except for a very thin lining and the brain stem. She had normal intelligence and mental abilities. There are several cases of people being born with barely any brain and managing to live a fairly normal life.

      I’d better say it first before the alarmists gang up. We have direct proof on this blog with alarmists of people with apparently fully functioning brains who apparently cannot use any of them.

      • David Appell says:

        Maybe you cant find anything with which to disagree? Have you managed to find the hypothesis which explains things which you assert dont need explaining anyway?

        All very mysterious.

        Cheers.

  31. ren says:

    The temperature above the 80th parallel is the lowest since the beginning of winter and close to 245 degrees K.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Ah, the wonders of the “average”.

        Does this term mean that in the past, some temperatures have been higher than the current average, with the current average representing lower temperatures, and also the reverse?

        What is your point? Are you claiming you can predict the future from the past, or that past temperatures mean something now, or what?

        It all seems a bit silly doesn’t it? Arguing about whose version of the past is better?

        Thats the nature of climatology and its practitioners, I suppose. Astrology believers probably argue about whose readings of the heavens is better, too.

        It doesn’t matter whose version of the past is more colorful, does it? None have any application to the present or the future in any meaningful sense.

        Finding a testable GHE theory would help, of course.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Trended, detrended, adjusted, readjusted, kriged, interpolated, fabricated, estimated and thats just the past!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Spot on. You’re starting to get with the program.

            Nullius in verba!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Keep up the stupid, pointless and irrelevant psychobabble if it provides solace and keeps you calm.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Im told that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for demonstrating the sincerity of your misguided attempt at flattery.

            It wont do you any good, of course.

            You will remain stupid, regardless of what I think.

            This is fun isn’t it? You demonstrating stupidity, and me laughing at you because of it. You are right – it’s not good form to poke fun at the mentally afflicted. However, being politically correct is not one of my more prominent character attributes.

            Only a stupid person would have failed to notice that.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            What a revelation! Next youll be telling people that heat melts ice, and turns it into water! Heat the water even more, and it becomes a gas, becoming a part of the atmosphere, if unconstrained!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Da,

            I see you are finally getting a grip on physics.

            It has taken a while. If you like, you can move onto the properties of gases such as CO2, which prevent some radiation from reaching thermometers, resulting in lower temperatures.

            Thats probably a bit advanced for you at this point.

            Some rather stupid and ignorant people actually believe that putting more CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer, actually raises the temperature of the thermometer! How stupid and ignorant is that?

            However, you have started on your quest for knowledge.

            Just remember “Nullius in verba’.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…The temperature above the 80th parallel is the lowest since the beginning of winter and close to 245 degrees K.

      Bur, ren, that’s -28C. Please tell me it isn’t so, I’ve heard all the Arctic ice is nearly gone and that we will soon be able to kayak through the Arctic in tee shirts, in winter.

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    profp…”Both you guys [GR and Mike F] seem to have a fixation on the myth Climategate”.

    Here’s a 182 page PDF file itemizing your delusional myth.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

    • David Appell says:

      So keep up the stupid, pointless and irrelevant psychobabble if it provides solace and keeps you calm.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”So keep up the stupid, pointless and irrelevant psychobabble if it provides solace and keeps you calm”.

        Typical response from a myopic moron who is himself deeply in denial as to the utter dishonesty and lack of integrity offered by his alarmist mentors.

        A butt kisser of the highest order.

        • David Appell says:

          Why is it that you seem to believe that anybody particularly cares what you think?

          Have you a higher opinion of your importance than I do? Or anyone else?

          Maybe a fact or two might raise you in the opinion of others, if thats what you desire.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            A couple of facts –

            You’re stupid.

            You’re ignorant.

            – unless you can can provide proof to the contrary, as you yourself so often demand.

            Remember “Nullius in verba.”

            Cheers.

          • I cant, in good conscience, play this game with you. Sorry.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I don’t believe you are sorry at all. Where’s your proof?

            What game have you been playing? Did you win? Was there a prize?

            I’m cut to the quick you didn’t tell me about the prize – and now you’re picking up your playthings and leaving!

            Oh well, so sad – too bad.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The opening remarks from the link above re Climategate. Of course profp and other skeptics on this blog are firmly in denial as to the seriousness of the chicanery played out in the emails, a vile perversion of science:

      “The Climategate emails expose to our view a world that was previously hidden from virtually everyone.

      This formerly hidden world was made up of a very few players. But they controlled those critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) processes involving the temperature records from the past, and the official interpretation of current temperature data. They exerted previously unrecognized influence on the peer review process for papers seeking publication in the officially recognised climate science literature from which the IPCC was supposed to rely exclusively in order to draw its conclusions.

      The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the traditions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large”.

      • David Appell says:

        What mad delusion would convince you that I give a fig for what you think, or dont think?

        Call me whatever names you like. Do you imagine I care?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Obviously you don’t care – bully for you!

          If you had cared, you would have responded, demanding to be insulted (I cant for the life of me figure out why you would want abuse heaped on your head. Do you want me to attempt to insult, offend, demean. malign or bully you as well?)

          What type of names would you like to be called, or does the invitation only extend to your friends?

          I wish you every success in your new endeavor. May it prove more successful than your previous ones, which don’t appear to have worked out all that well for you.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Can you actually come up with something novel?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            No. There’s still no testable GHE hypothesis, Gavin Schmidt is still claiming to be a climate scientist, and Michael Mann still talks to trees, and you remain ignorant and stupid.

            So nothing new. Should there be?

            Cheers.

          • Maybe you also think Einstein was a paperboy? I will note that I dont care about your opinions, and you cant stop me.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Was he? I assume you know. Remember –

            Nullius in verba.

            Cheers

          • Do you think Im going to play this stupid game forever?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            How would I know? Do you think I can read your mind? You’re the one who claims to be able to read the minds of dead physicists – surely reading your own mind should be easy.

            Or maybe it’s just too mysterious – up to you, I guess.

            Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      GR,

      David has obviously been caught in a time warp of his own devising. Being unable to find any reasonable epithets of his own to hurl, he has paid me a great compliment by repetitively reusing some of my words.

      I responded thus –

      “DA,

      I’m told that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for demonstrating the sincerity of your misguided attempt at flattery.

      It won’ do you any good, of course.

      You will remain stupid, regardless of what I think.

      Cheers.”

      And I shall continue to do so – possibly adding a little extra touch here or there, should I feel inclined.

      Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Science and Public Policy wont reveal their funders, but it certainly smells like oil.

      That’s the best Gordon can do.

      https://www.desmogblog.com/science-and-public-policy-institute

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Ooooh! Another conspiracy theory!

        Of course the world is run by Big Oil. And Hillary Clinton is the US President. And you are revered by all for discovering the testable GHE hypothesis!

        Or maybe you’re dreaming. Which is more likely?

        Nullius in verba.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Maybe you cant find anything with which to disagree? Have you managed to find the hypothesis which explains things which you assert dont need explaining anyway?

          All very mysterious.

          Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You are right. All very mysterious. Probably as mysterious as the missing testable GHE hypothesis, or the location of Trenberth’s missing heat.

            Or the reason you believe in the non-existent GHE?

            Keep ’em coming.

            Cheers.

          • You spend hours here every day calling people stupid.

            I cant think of a sadder way to spend ones time.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            That is only because you are stupid and ignorant, unless you can provide proof to the contrary.

            Remember –

            “Nullius in verba”. That’s Latin, in case you didn’t know. If you can’t work it out, get somebody to explain it to you.

            Cheers.

          • nurseratched says:

            “I cant think of a sadder way to spend ones time.”
            Yes, he is a sad case. No friends other than his pet monkey and the other inmate (GR) in the strait jacket. We try to provide some alternative recreational therapy but he he seems to be a lost cause. I may consider electro-convulsive therapy if he gets worse.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            n,

            It had to happen. You couldn’t help yourself making another stupid, pointless and irrelevant comment? Uncontrollable urges to appear even more stupid than usual, I assume.

            Why am I not surprised? Because I’m not surprised, thats why!

            Mad CO2 AGW supporters love wriggling and twisting. trying to avoid at all costs admitting that they don’t even have a testable GHE hypothesis.

            Carry on with the psychobabble. You obviously aren’t good enough at it to sell any, so you might as well appear stupid here – at least you don’t have to pay to have it published!

            More please!

            Cheers.

          • Nurseratched says:

            Sounding a bit agitated aren’t we?

          • Youre not going to find what you need here, Mike, no mmatter how many times you use the word stupid.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Well David, i would have to ask – is your comment meant to be stupid, mindless and irrelevant, or maybe just so cunningly cryptic as to be incomprehensible?

            Am I supposed to feel insulted or offended? What information are you trying to impart to me?

            Maybe you think I might value an unsolicited opinion which I consider totally worthless, but even you are probably not that stupid!

            Carry on, David. I’m sure you are capable of that, at the very least.

            Cheers.

          • Nurseratched says:

            Sounding more agitated. I have warned you before- the electrodes are being warmed up.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Bring it on, you stupid person (chortle)! Stick to torturing data – it can’t push back, can it?

            Did you work hard to become stupid and ignorant, or does it come naturally?

            Bring on more pointless, irrelevant and stupid psychobabble – it helps to keep you away from self harm, I suppose. I find it all quite amusing. I assume you do, too.

            Cheers.

          • Nurseratched says:

            I will consult with professor P. Except he is too busy.
            Maybe Doctor No. Except he is away.
            I must therefore talk to the head of the facility – Doctor Roy Spencer PhD!
            (Don’t be alarmed by the PhD.)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Maybe you could consult with yourself? Good luck with getting a sensible reply.

            Dumb talks to dumber!

            Cheers

  33. ren says:

    The current temperature over Scandinavia, from where air reaches Central Europe.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/3p5sy1aquzwm.png

  34. ren says:

    The forecast of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere does not give hope for more warming in Europe until March 25. Polar vortex over Siberia ( circulation to left) and elevated pressure over Greenland (circulation to right).
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00961/157bccr4zrf3.gif

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    Far more important to Earth than global warming or climate change:

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/techandscience/nasa-unable-to-stop-enormous-asteroid-bennu-which-could-hit-earth-in-2135/ar-BBKizLj?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

    Next in importance is population.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    dr no…”Stephen Hawking:
    The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

    RIP, Stephen Hawking.

    Stephen may well have applied that to himself with his insistence that the present universe emanated out of nothingness, in an instant, for no apparent reason. Knowledge is neither an enemy nor a friend, it is a collection of thoughts, some of which are closer to the truth than others, which are not even close.

    The greatest danger to me is the inability we humans often possess to distinguish between what is true from what stems from human arrogance and ego. That ignorance can be overcome but first we must become aware of it. If we lack the awareness to see we are that stupid, how can we fix it?

    I keep trying to communicate that to the alarmists here but they are so hung-up on their arrogance and egocentricity they cannot begin to fathom what I’m on about. They are so steeped in an appeal to authority they cannot allow their God-given awareness and intelligence to operate.

  37. Harry Cummings says:

    Man made drought
    Man made floods
    Man made warming
    Man made cooling
    Man made ice melt
    Man made climate change
    Man made sea level rise
    Man made sea level fall
    Man made CO2 rise
    Man made CO2 fall

    Natural…. of what heresy do you speak

    Regards

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      harry….”Man made drought
      Man made floods
      Man made warming…..”

      Even if the place starts freezing over into another ice age, we’ll get the blame for that too. Of course, alarmists will claim AGW theory predicted it.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Doom! Doom! Thrice doom, I say!

      I must consult the entrails, and get back to you later.

      Cheers.

  38. ren says:

    The GCW/FMI SWE Tracker illustrates the current winter records for 2014/2015, relative to the long-term mean and variability of the snow water equivalent for the Northern Hemisphere (1 standard deviation calculated for 1982-2012), excluding mountains. The historical SWE record is based on the time series of measurements by two different space-borne passive microwave sensors. The current data combines these satellite measurements with groundbased weather station records in a data assimilation scheme. Updated daily by GlobSnow, a Global Cryosphere Watch initiative, funded by the European Space Agency and coordinated by the Finnish Meteorological Institute.
    https://i1.wp.com/globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg

  39. ren says:

    The Argentine navy has rescued four US scientists and a contractor from an Antarctic camp after the US icebreaker due to pick them up could not reach them because of thick sea-ice.

    The five were carrying out research on Joinville Island off the north-eastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43384867

    • Mike Flynn says:

      r,

      Do you think they should have got a decent forecast?

      Maybe one from Gavin Schmidt’s Amazing Technicolor Dream Machine?

      I suppose their excuse might be that nobody can reliably see into the future.

      What a surprise!

      Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”The five were carrying out research on Joinville Island off the north-eastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula”.

      Note how far north that is, almost to the tip of South America. That’s where climate alarmist scientists hang out in the relative warmth, creating propaganda about Antarctica related to a small-area warming phenomenon in that region.

  40. ren says:

    A sudden jump in temperature in the stratosphere occurred at the same time as a strong drop in TSI.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/gqwe4z1gz44u.png
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/qzxiboyiodjx.png

  41. ren says:

    Strong frost in eastern Canada and the north-eastern US.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/iy17gcfqf0mt.png

  42. Steve Case says:

    This little, but busy corner of the world, has a discussion, apparently spanning more than one thread, arguing about the moon and whether it rotates or not.

    Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) has a really good one out today:

    Rotating Moon from LRO

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      steve…”Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) has a really good one out today:”

      Not a rotation on a Moon axis, that was the original point by g*r. A fake news rotation.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      Fantastic, as in excellent, very good, great . . .

      I can imagine the response. I’ll keep out of it, discretion being the better part of valour!

      Cheers.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      The text starts: “No one, presently, sees the Moon rotate like this. That’s because the Earth’s moon is tidally locked to the Earth”

      There are certainly some here that believe the Moon is doing that. If the Moon were really rotating on it axis, then we would, indeed, see all sides.

      Some folks just can’t think for themselves.

      It’s fun to watch.

      • Steve Case says:

        And we see the different phases of the moon because the sun shines on it from different angles throughout the month. So it would then follow, since as you point out the moon doesn’t rotate, that the sun must be going around the moon. Right?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Maybe you missed some of the explanations, Steve. Think of a toy train on a circular track. From inside the track, you would only see one side of the train (left side, if train moving CCW). From outside the track, you would see all sides of the train. This is the motion of the Moon.

          The Moon “orbits”, but does not “rotate on its axis”. Some people just cannot understand the difference. It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            Think of a toy train on a circular track.

            That argument only works because the train is essentially one-dimensional; it fails for a circular object (2-dimensional, as are the Moon and Earth in cross-section), as this animation makes clear:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q

            But a circular or spherical object *does* show the same face to the Earth if it rotates such that its rotational period is equal to its orbital period, as is true for the Moon.

            Beyond that, it would be extremely unlikely for any astronomical body to form and evolve with exactly zero angular momentum — the chance is basically zero.

            The Moon does indeed rotate.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie appelly (rhymes with jelly), you STILL have it wrong.

            Your video confuses “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”. What they show as “not rotating” is in fact synchronous CCW “rotating on its axis”.

            Maybe someday, if you study physics, you will learn about orbital motions.

            The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.

          • David Appell says:

            The video shows *both* rotation and orbiting.

            The train on your track CAN’T rotate, since…it’s on a track. But the Moon can rotate, and does.

            As usual, instead of refuting the argument, you have nothing but name calling and insults. Why should anyone even bother?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, the train can’t rotate on its axis, agreed. That’s why it is a perfect model for an object “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its axis”.

            It’s actually a fairly simple concept, as demonstrated by the simple toy train. But, folks that cannot think for themselves will never get it.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And appelly, I enjoy your additional comedy, with the whining about “name-calling” and “insults”. I’m just using the screen name you have used. And, your hilarious, misguided “physics” is of your own creation. You are insulting yourself.

            But, I guess you need someone to blame.

            More, please.

          • David Appell says:

            From the first example in the video:

            When the nonrotating Moon is at Earth’s 9 o’clock position, the red half of the Moon is displayed to Earth.

            When it’s at Earth’s 3 o’clock position, the white half of the Moon is displayed towards Earth.

            So if the Moon weren’t rotating, the Earth would see all parts of its surface. It doesn’t.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, pay close attention. If you don’t want to be a clown, don’t act like one.

            The toy train, or a race horse, or a race car, on an oval track, is a perfect model of an object “orbiting” but NOT “rotating on its axis”. You are STILL confusing the two motions. In the first of the video, the moon IS “rotating on its axis”. The single motion of “orbiting” does NOT produce “rotating on its axis”. There are TWO different, distinct, independent motions.

            Reality is hard, for a closed-mind. Maybe it’s just easier to be a clown?

            Your choice.

          • David Appell says:

            In the first of the video, the moon IS rotating on its axis.

            It’s not. Looking down from the Earth’s axis, the Moon is not rotating around the same axis. The red half of the Moon and the white half stay in the same position, showing, as the video says, the Moon is not rotating.

            https://youtu.be/OZIB_leg75Q?t=5s

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, you have a closed-mind. You throw away the simple toy train example, because it destroys your pseudoscience. You only want to see what fits your beliefs. You choose to be a clown. Don’t whine when someone refers to you that way.

          • David Appell says:

            As I already wrote, the train is not the right model, since it is only one-dimensional and can’t rotate around an axis through it.

            But the Moon isn’t one-dimensional and *can* rotate.

            Just because the train shows one side does not at all mean the Moon will.

            You haven’t disproved my arguments, so you’re doing more and more name calling. That’s not a coincidence.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, I have some sad news for you. Just because you wrote something, that does not mean it contains any facts or logic.

            The toy train is a perfect model, BECAUSE it can ONLY orbit and can NOT “rotate on its axis”. You don’t want to use the toy train for a model BECAUSE it destroys your pseudoscience.

            But, I’m enjoying your squirming, so let’s improve the model.

            Mount a sharp spike on the train, sticking straight up. Pierce an orange on the spike. Draw a face on the orange, so that if faces the center of the circular train track. Now, as the train makes an orbit, notice the “face of the moon” is ALWAYS facing the track center. The orange orbits, but is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            Your turn. I love your comedy.

          • David Appell says:

            The orange also isn’t free to move around an axis. It has the same issue as the train — it’s the wrong model.

            You don’t allow the train or orange to rotate, then use it as proof it doesn’t rotate. Sorry, no.

            The first example in the video shows a Moon that doesn’t rotate (but could).

            In it, which side of the Moon faces the Earth when it’s in the 9 o’clock position?

            Which side of the Moon faces the Earth when it’s in the 3 o’clock position?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry appelly, but the orange IS free to rotate on the spike. It’s just that there is NO force to rotate it. It has ZERO rotational momentum.

            BUSTED!

            You’re still confused by the video because you don’t understand “orbiting”. Convince me that you understand the simple motion of orbiting before you start your “red-herring” questions.

            Is the orange, mounted on the spike, “orbiting”?

            Does the “face on the moon” always face the track center?

            Is the orange “rotating on its axis”?

            Reality is a bitch, huh?

          • David Appell says:

            Then look vertically down the stake holding the orange.

            Envision the train going around the track. Look at a line of constant latitude on the orange.

            This line rotates as the train goes around the track. Looking down, the orange *IS* rotating around the stake/axis.

            A case where the orange *ISN’T* rotating would look exactly like the first example in the video.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, you’re NOT making any progress. You’re still stuck in that “one-dimensional” rut.

            You were unable to answer the basic questions about orbiting, so let me give you the answers:

            Is the orange, mounted on the spike, “orbiting”?

            YES

            Does the “face on the moon” always face the track center?

            YES

            Is the orange “rotating on its axis”?

            NO

            The motion is an exact model for the Moon. But clowns are immune to reality.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            Does the face on the moon always face the track center?

            Yes, which means the orange/Moon is rotating.

            At the 3 o’clock point the Moon faces, say, to the left.

            At the 9’o’clock point, the same face faces to the right.

            The face moves around.

            Hence the Moon is rotating.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, your inability to learn/reason is amazing!

            The orange is clearly NOT rotating on its axis. It is riding on the orbiting train.

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            At the 3 o’clock position, one half of the orange is facing the Earth.

            At the 9 o’clock position, the same half of the orange is facing the Earth.

            This means the orange is rotating.

            If it wasn’t rotating, in the 9 o’clock position the other half of the orange would face the Earth (as in the video).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry appelly, it’s “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”. Wrong, AGAIN.

            Your slavish adherence to sluggishness is only surpassed by your reverence for pseudoscience.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            If at one point a body is oriented in one direction, and at the opposite point it’s oriented in the opposite direction, then the body is rotating. (Whether it’s orbiting or not.)

            The hemisphere of a body that DOES NOT rotate would point in the same direction at all times, like in the beginning of the video. Clearly this does not apply to your orange. Or the Moon.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, you’re seriously confused, just like with all of your pseudoscience. You need to study the motion of orbiting bodies. Kepler’s laws define such motion. The instantaneous motion of an orbiting object is tangential. It is NOT rotating. It is exactly the same as the toy train. You keep trying to make it ALSO rotate on its axis. That is not the single motion of orbiting. If an object is ONLY orbiting, it is constantly changing its direction.

            You just cannot understand. It’s the same with the 800,000 K, 2LoT, and all the rest of your pseudoscience.

            A few people can actually do pretty well, with a career in comedy. ..

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”If at one point a body is oriented in one direction, and at the opposite point its oriented in the opposite direction, then the body is rotating. (Whether its orbiting or not.)”

            A local rotation requires angular momentum. The Moon is tidally-locked, case closed.

            g*r claimed initially that the Moon is not rotating on a local axis, which is correct.

          • If the moon wasnt rotating, its hemispheres would always point in the same direction in space. Just like the first scenario in the video. In that case, from the earth, we would see both hemispheres as the moon traveled around in its orbit. We dont. Hence the moon is rotating.

          • The moon IS rotating about its local axis. If it wasnt, we would see all sides of it. We dont.

            Its easier to envision if you imagine the earth tidally locked to the sun. Such an earth is clearly rotating, in order to keep the same side always pointed towards the sun.

          • David Appell says:

            This makes the rotation clear:

            Imagine the earth is tidally locked to the sun. Lets say north and south America is the side facing the sun. Now imagine the earth three months later in its orbit. Clearly the earth must rotate by a quarter turn about its local axis in order to keep north and south America facing the sun.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, you’re just saying the same things over and over. There is no evidence you are learning. The little toy train completely destroys your case. That’s why you have to throw it out. “NO facts allowed!”

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            The toy train cant rotate, so its useless. So are conclusions based on it.

            The orange on the train does rotate about its local axis. Obviously. If it didnt work rotate, there is no way the same side could face the earth.

            Again, see the first 30 seconds of the video, which shows the moon orbiting the earth but not rotating. In that case all sides of the moon will be seen at the earth.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, rhymes with jelly, a closed-mind is an amazing thing.

            The toy train can’t rotate on its axis, just as the Moon is restrained by “tidally locking”.

            Same motion.

            The orange on the train does NOT rotate on its local axis. The same side always faces the center, just as the same side of the train.

          • David Appell says:

            Your need to insult and name call shows a lack of confidence.

            Both videos make the situation clear. The first video initially shows an orbit with no rotation of the moon. The moon is divided into halves, with A different color for each hemisphere. As the video makes very clear, if the tidally locked moon didnt rotate, all of the moons surface would be viewable from earth as the moon completed one orbit.

            Only if the moon rotates about its axis will the same side always be viewable from earth. Second example in the video also makes that clear.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly whines: “Your need to insult and name call shows a lack of confidence.”

            davie, as that famous line (almost) goes, “If you can’t stand people laughing at you, don’t be a clown.”

            And sorry, but invalid videos are NOT science, they are pseudoscience. The little toy train is all you need to understand. Refusing reality makes you a clown.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            You haven’t yet explained why the video is “invalid.” It’s a very clear explanation of the situation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No davie, I’ve explained it over and over. You just can’t understand.

          • David Appell says:

            No, you haven’t explained why the video is invalid.

            But you did say “the orbit determines the rotation.”

            a) that’s an admission there is rotation.
            b) simply the statement that the Moon is tidally locked. Which was the assumption made at the start of the problem.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “No, you haven’t explained why the video is invalid.”

            The video is invalid because they confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.

            “a) that’s an admission there is rotation.”

            No, that’s an admission that you “perceive” rotating on its axis. It’s your perception that is flawed.

            And, if you understood orbital motion, you would know that “tidally locked” means the Moon can NOT “rotate on its axis”.

            Let me try one more time to help you understand “orbiting”

            Hopefully you can understand that the toy train moving along a straight track is NOT “rotating on its axis”. Now, assume the straight track is actually a circular track with infinite diameter. The train is still not “rotating on its axis”, but now it does not even appear to be “orbiting”. It is still, to an observer, moving along a straight track.

            Now, decrease the diameter of the circular track. As the diameter gets smaller, the observer can see the curvature. The train is still NOT “rotating on its axis”, but the observer can see both sides of the train, from outside the track, as it makes an orbit.

            The train is “orbiting”, but NOT “rotating on its axis”. It’s the same motion as the Moon.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          Stills taken from the LRO, which is orbiting the Moon, presented as a video.

          Just as learned men once considered the Sun to be orbiting the Earth, in the same way the Moon could be considered to be orbiting the LRO orbiter.

          Rather depends on your definitions, I suppose. My view suits me – I’ll keep it to myself, and let others have theirs.

          It doesn’t seem to make any practical difference, does it? Go to it, chaps.

          Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mike, it really shouldn’t make much difference in people’s day-to-day lives. The Moon is doing quite well, regardless of what they believe. But the fascinating thing is that some people just cannot understand such a simple concept. They are willing to do anything to protect their “god”. Their “god” being “institutionalized science”. It’s a pretty clear picture of why the AGW hoax won’t go away. To the weak-mnded, NASA can NOT be wrong!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s early here, what time zone are you in?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            g,

            UTC +9:30

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mike…”Rather depends on your definitions, I suppose”.

            Problems arise when human definition, based on distorted human thought processes, collide with actuality. I used the word actuality because reality can be usurped to mean a personal reality based on that distorted thought. Actuality cannot be re-interpreted.

            A lot of the arguments put forth against g*r’s statement of actuality are based on personal realities, including personal frames of reference.

            My solution is to remove all humans and their minds from the equation and see what is left. Distorted human realities lead to Big Bangs and AGW.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2 absorbs infrared light whether humans are present or not.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            CO2 absorbs IR. Unless you are a denier, you will agree that all other gases do as well. However in 10 000 volumes of air, only 4 are CO2.

            That may not mean anything to you, but it does to me. It means that if CO2 blocks 2500 times as many IR rays as the same volume as the other parts of the air, it is still only equal to the effect of the oxygen, nitrogen etc.

            You would be stupid enough to believe that a quantity of supposed non GHG in a darkened sealed enclosure, whose walls are held at say, 270 K, cannot heat up, because it is exposed only to IR with a peak frequency firmly with in the IR range.

            According to you, neither oxygen nor nitrogen could possibly heat up, because you claim that they don’t absorb IR. And yet, after a while, even liquid air scrubbed of CO2 and H2O has managed to warm up to 270 K.

            You are just practising stupid, and ignorant, wishful thinking. Get with the program, David. Any gas can be heated – and allowed to cool. Don’t believe it, if you wish. The gas won’t care – nor will I.

            Continually ascribing magical effects to the fact that gases can be heated and allowed to cool is just stupid, isn’t it? Even worse, you can’t even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? That’s not scientific, David. Just stupid and ignorant.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, CO2 also emits IR.

            You probably just forgot.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, CO2 also emits IR. Half those emissions, on average, Go download, toward the surface. That is exactly AGW.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Let me get this correct.

            AGW consists of CO2 absorbing heat from the surface, and giving half of it back. Are you sure that you believe that that CO2 giving half of its energy to space makes the surface hotter?

            Are you quite mad? In what alternate reality do you live?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mike…”You would be stupid enough to believe that a quantity of supposed non GHG in a darkened sealed enclosure, whose walls are held at say, 270 K, cannot heat up…”

            Happens all the time in a room. Nitrogen and oxygen quickly warm when exposed to a warm surface. In a gas furnace, the N2/O2 are blown past a heat exchanger which is nothing more than a metal baffle with flames on one side.

            The air blowing out my heat vents are 99% N2/O2 and it’s very warm. When the furnace turns of on a particularly cold day, it doesn’t take long for the N2/O2 to cool down.

            Even with a radiant electric heater, like baseboard heating, it’s the direct conduction from the electric element to N2/O2 that heats the air. You cannot feel the radiation more than a few inches from the baseboard unit.

            Many baseboard unit here in Canada have a relatively thick sheet of tin in front of the radiant unit to hide it. That would block radiation directly. The units leave an airspace above the tin cover for directly heated air to flow out and rise. As it rises, it expands by convection, heating the entire room.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Yes, CO2 also emits IR. Half those emissions, on average, Go download, toward the surface. That is exactly AGW”.

            Can you explain the basis of AGW, how CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can heat over 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen?

            I have been channeling Dalton and he’d like to know how that works. According to his law of partial pressures, a gas with a 0.04% concentration should only contribute a very small quantity of heat, say about 0.04C.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie believes because CO2 emits IR, it will heat the planet!

            davie, EVERYTHING emits IR!

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            Everything emits IR. The Earth emits IR. But without the GHGs in the atmosphere, that IR would escape to space. With GHGs in the atmosphere, some of that outgoing IR is ab.sor.bed and re-emitted, in part downward. = GHE = AGW.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, you will never learn.

            The atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”. You should look at the effect of the last huge El Niñ0 on the UAH global. Now see how the temps are dropping back. If you were able to reason, that would convince you the atmosphere is NOT “trapping heat”.

            But, of course, we know you can’t handle logic.

            It’s fun to watch.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          steve…”And we see the different phases of the moon because the sun shines on it from different angles throughout the month. So it would then follow, since as you point out the moon doesnt rotate, that the sun must be going around the moon…”

          Hope you’re not troll trying to stir the pot. I’ll give you benefit of the doubt.

          Your observation from the perspective of the Sun shining on the Moon sees a body HELD in a tidally-locked position in an orbit. The Moon is constrained to follow it’s orbital path around the Earth with the orbit being a resultant path between the Moon’s tangential momentum and the Earth’s perpendicular gravitational force.

          As the result of the orbital constraint, the Moon has to turn wrt the Sun and but it is not turning around a local axis. That turning is not a rotation, the Moon is not rotating around anything. To rotate around a local axis, the Moon would require a local angular momentum it does no have. If it did, it would not be tidally-locked.

          • David Appell says:

            Imagine the earth is tidally locked to the sun.

            Let us say that Ecuador directly faces the sun throughout earths orbit. Now imagine the Earth six months later in its orbit. In order for Ecuador to remain facing the sun, the earth must rotate around its local axis by 180.

            This makes the rotation of a tidally locked body clear.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            NO davie, the orbit takes care of keeping the same face toward the Earth. You STILL do not understand orbital motion. The toy train orbits, but you can NOT understand such a simple thing.

            I’m beginning to understand why you can’t get a job.

          • David Appell says:

            No, the orbit doesnt take care of keeping the same face toward the earth. It is completely possible, as, again, the video shows, for the moon to orbit but not keep the same face towards the Earth.

            In the same way, a tidally locked earth could travel 1/4 of the way around its orbit, but not rotate around its local axis. But in that case the same side of the earth wouldnt face the sun; it would be the side of the 90 further in longitude.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie still gets it wrong: “It is completely possible, as, again, the video shows, for the moon to orbit but not keep the same face towards the Earth.”

            davie, that would be IMPOSSIBLE, unless the Moon were “rotating on its axis”. If the “face to Earth” changes, the Moon is “rotating on its axis”. If the “face to Earth” is not changing, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            Simple. But it sure tangles up those that cannot think for themselves. Very similar to the GHE nonsense, huh?

          • David Appell says:

            You have it exactly backwards.

            Again, consider the earth tidally locked to the sun. This is easier to consider, because we can easily imagine the geography of the earth, so its easy to keep track of which side is where.

            Suppose Ecuador always faces the sun.

            Three months later, the earth has moved around 1/4 of its orbit. In order for Ecuador to remain facing the sun, the earth must rotate by 1/4 turn. This rotation is about the local axis.

            If The earth hadnt rotated, Ecuador would not be facing towards the sun, but some place like Indonesia or Western Africa would.

          • Steve Case says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            March 18, 2018 at 6:40 PM
            steve…Hope youre not troll trying to stir the pot. Ill give you benefit of the doubt.

            I more or less said I am exactly that. I said that sometimes hitting the tar baby can be fun. I’m getting a good chuckle out of watching the silly argument proceed.

            Wikipedia says, “In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “sticky situation” that is only aggravated by additional involvement with it.”

            “The moon rotates, no it doesn’t” argument is harmless entertainment. On the other hand, The “CO2 is a looming catastrophic disaster, no it isn’t argument” is not silly and is an expensive disruption to our way of life.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”the earth must rotate around its local axis by 180″.

            Draw a radial line from centre of Sun through Earth. Would the Earth turn against that line? Make it a rigid member, like a spoke, so the Earth remains rigidly locked. Would it rotate against the spoke?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, the line you want to draw isnt the Earths axis of rotation, which is the axis the Earth rotates around. When the earth completes half its orbit, Ecuador is facing any opposite direction. That can only happen if the earth rotates!!!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            steve…”I more or less said I am exactly that”.

            Oh, cool, never met a self-confessed troll before. Stick around, maybe we can ‘edumacate’ you on CO2 propaganda.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Again, consider the earth tidally locked to the sun. This is easier to consider, because we can easily imagine the geography of the earth, so its easy to keep track of which side is where”.

            Imagine the Earth held in place with a rigid spoke from Sun through Earth so the same side always faces the Sun. You are inferring the Earth would rotate against the spoke but it couldn’t because the spoke holds it in place. It would still ‘turn’ as you describe but no rotation on an axis.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2s ab.sorp.tion of IR is a quantum mechanical process, not a classical process like the Daltons law youre using. (Thats right, the greenhouse effect is a quantum phenomenon. If atmospheric molecules Where just tiny billiard balls, as classical physics and thermodynamics assumes, there would be no greenhouse effect. You have to calculate using quantum mechanical rules and the measured ab.sorp.tivity of GHGs as a function of wavelength. It is not an easy calculation if you want to do it right, and sciences spent several decades getting it right.

          • David Appell says:

            spoke or not, Explain to me how its possible for Ecuador to always face the sun if the earth doesnt rotate around its axis.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            What a stupid attempt to weasel out!

            You’ve stopped talking about insulation. Now its just too complicated for you to explain, but “scientists” have spent decades getting it “right”.

            Getting what right? Explaining the operation of a GHE that doesn’t even exist Which scientists. Gavin Schmidt perhaps? Or maybe Michael Mann?

            Are you stupid and ignorant, or are you just stupid and ignorant?

            If you cant even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis (a basic requirement of the scientific method) who is going to believe that you know what you are talking about?

            For extra stupidity points, try explaining what ECS or TCR is, and explain why the “scientists” who spent “decades” getting it “right” have no idea how to supposedly measure either. Still guessing after decades of getting it “right”?

            You’d have to be joking wouldn’t you? Nah. I think you are really stupid and ignorant enough to believe the fantasy that you have concocted. I hope you enjoy living there.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”You have to calculate using quantum mechanical rules and the measured ab.sorp.tivity of GHGs as a function of wavelength”.

            I agree, if we are talking about the interaction of atoms or molecules at the atomic level. Dalton is dealing with a macroscopic problem that gives the basis for calculating partial pressures with mixed gases.

            In a constant volume, pressure is directly proportional to temperature and that is proved by the way temperature decreases in step with pressure as altitude increases. That’s not a problem for quantum theory it is well understood in standard chemistry.

            PV = nRT

            No quantum theory involved. If the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the partial pressures of all gases in the mix then the heat contributed by each partial pressure should be proportional to each partial pressure. That means N2/O2 should contribute roughly 99% of atmospheric heat and CO2 about 0.04%.

            Of course, that’s an ideal calculation and there are other processes involved in atmospheric temperature, especially locally. However, no matter how you look at it the proportion of each gas in any atmospheric process remains the same.

            You might make a separate argument for water vapour, especially in the Tropics but I’m willing to bet N2/O2 still contributes most of the heat. You cannot separate the WV from the other gases.

          • David Appell says:

            GR, Again, your calculation is classical and ignores quantum mechanics. The greenhouse effect arises from the interaction of molecules and radiation. The ideal gas model completely ignores that interaction.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Steve Case says: “On the other hand, The ‘CO2 is a looming catastrophic disaster, no it isn’t argument’ is not silly and is an expensive disruption to our way of life.”

            Yes Steve, but the bigger issue is the growing presence of pseudoscience. It’s pervasive growth is seriously harming mankind. It’s taking us back to the Dark Ages.

            The Moon/axis issue is easy to understand. No advanced physics required. Yet, it clearly demonstrate the desperation of the pseudoscience clowns. The can NOT let “institutionalized science” be exposed.

            It’s serious, but it’s also fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            The moons rotation is easy to understand; the animations show that.

            For the hypothetical tidally locked Earth, explain how Equador would always face the Sun if the Earth doesnt rotate.

          • David Appell says:

            Whats fun to watch is you thinking youre right when every astronomer in the world disagrees with you and agrees with me.

          • David Appell says:

            GR, consider the hypothetical tidally locked Earth.

            Imagine the view from above, with the Earth orbiting the Sun. Ecuador will always face the Sun.

            Now imagine you’re reaching down, holding the Earth as it traces its orbit.

            The Earth goes around its orbit and Ecuador always faces the Sun. Clearly one must rotate one’s hand in order to make that happen. That rotation is about the Earth’s axis of rotation. After one full orbit your hand would have to rotate 360 degrees.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, that little toy train has all your pseudoscience squashed. Now, it’s coming after you. ..

            Sleep well.

          • David Appell says:

            The orange on your train rotates. The side facing the Earth constantly changes the direction it faces in order for it to remain pointed at the Earth. That’s rotation. After one full orbit it has rotated 360 degrees.

            I notice you avoid all other arguments, like holding the Earth (or orange) in your hand as it orbits. Your hand *must* rotate to keep the same side of the orange facing the Earth.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            That means N2/O2 should contribute roughly 99% of atmospheric heat and CO2 about 0.04%.

            How do N2 and O2 “contribute” heat?
            What does that mean exactly?

            “Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth,” December 30th, 2011.
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

          • David Appell says:

            Saying the “orbit determines the rotation” is:

            a) an admission that, yes, there is rotation
            b) simply a statement that the Moon is tidally locked.

            So all you’ve concluded is that for tidally locked bodies, the rotational period equals the orbital period. Which was what was assumed.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            In a constant volume, pressure is directly proportional to temperature and that is proved by the way temperature decreases in step with pressure as altitude increases.

            No. Up to the tropopause, pressure decreases exponentially with altitude, but temperature decreases linearly.

            http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap2.html

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Wrong AGAIN, appelly, rhymes with jelly, the orange is NOT rotating on its axis. It is in orbit riding atop the train. It is NOT rotating on the spike.

            Hilariously, you can’t learn the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. But then, what can you learn?

            We won’t go there. ..

          • David Appell says:

            The Moon isn’t on a spike — it’s free to rotate around its axis.

            At one point the Earth-facing face of the Moon points toward (say) the 3 o’clock position. Halfway around the orbit, the Moon it points toward the 9 o’clock position.

            How does the Moon point in opposite directions without rotating?


            I have no insulted you throughout this long exchange. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, let’s see what hilarious clown tricks appelly, rhymes with jelly, uses this time.

            No one said the Moon was on a spike, davie. RED HERRING.

            Then, davie asks: “How does the Moon point in opposite directions without rotating?”

            Because it is “orbiting”, NOT “rotating on its axis”, for the eleventy-eleventh time!

            And davie, AGAIN, you insult yourself. I am providing facts and logic. You are providing hilarious debate tricks. If you don’t want to be a clown, don’t act like one.

            Glad to help.

          • David Appell says:

            Since you won’t extend me the same courtesy and stop your insults, I’m done with you and your rudeness.

            A shame, because without your insults it could have been a good discussion.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No appelly, it was NOT a good discussion. You had NOTHING to offer except the same talking points, and your whining.

            But, your display of ignorance and immaturity was fun to watch.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ March 19, 2018 at 8:52 AM

            The ideal gas model completely ignores that interaction.

            Well, yes, but the error isn’t so much that as it is that it is mere tautology. Pressure times volume is (essentially) proportional to temperature. But, pressure isn’t a cause, it is an effect that goes hand-in-glove with the temperature.

            So, if someone says pressure produces temperature, you have to ask, what produces the pressure? All they’ve done is displaced the question. They haven’t answered it.

            Gordon Robertson @ March 18, 2018 at 6:40 PM

            ‘…the Moon has to turn wrt the Sun and but it is not turning around a local axis.’

            If it’s turning, it’s turning on a local axis.

            “…the Moon would require a local angular momentum it does no have.”

            The Moon has approximately 6 exa-exa-joule-seconds of angular momentum.

            “If it didn’t, it would not be tidally-locked.”

            FIFY

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bark hasn’t figured out the Moon/axis thingy yet?

            Maybe it just seems like months. ..

            Hilarious.

            Bark, the Moon’s angular momentum comes from its orbital motion. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            WKTLOFY

          • Bart says:

            Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The bark is pretty shallow.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart is right. And N.A.S.A., who knows a few things about the Moon, says it rotates.

            This animation makes the rotation clear:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, you’re months behind. When I was first inspired to present this topic, I started with a video made by NASA. Most of “institutional science” promotes the idea that the Moon “rotates on its axis”. That’s why this is so fascinating. Most people cannot think for themselves, and will rely on pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            The moon does rotate. All astronomers agree on that. The Wikipedia animation shows it very clearly. Yourre the one who isnt thinking straight. Yet you think the rest of the entire world is wrong and youre right. Dunning-Kruger.

          • Svante says:

            David,
            g*e*r*a*n does agree that the moon rotates, here:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8j9sl2w

            Based on this reference:
            https://tinyurl.com/y74ymyf5

          • David Appell says:

            Thanks for that, Svante.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Now shady, there you go again!

            You’re twisting and spinning, distorting and confusing.

            (That’s why davie loves you.)

            The truth is: the “axis” is question is through the center of mass. Here is a sphere “rotating on it axis”.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis

            More humor, please.

          • David Appell says:

            The Moon is doing what your sphere is doing.

            This is shown on the animation to the left:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

            See the darker side of the Moon? It’s rotating counterclockwise.

            On the right, the Moon is not rotation — the dark patch stays pointed in the same direction at all times.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry appelly, rhymes with jelly, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. Maybe you are confusing the Moon with Earth. Earth does “rotate on its axis”.

            Or maybe you are just practicing more of your clown routine.

            It’s hard to know, because both are funny.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you see the dark patch on the Moon to the left?

            Do you see it going around counterclockwise.

            That’s because it’s rotating.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No davie, that is called “orbiting”.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you see the dark patch on the Moon to the left?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, I the dark patch it.

            Do you understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”?

          • David Appell says:

            Good. Do you see the little white circle in the center of the Moon that represents its axis?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry to interrupt your clown routine, jelly, but you didn’t answer my question.

            Do you understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, I do. Orbiting is around the Earth. I’m talking about the Moon itself.

            Now, do you see the little white circle in the center of the Moon, representing its axis.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry Jelly, but you did not answer the question:

            Do you understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on its axis?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes — orbiting is around a different body like the Earth; rotation is around the Moon’s own axis, independent of the Earth.

            Now, do you see the little white circle in the center of the Moon that represents its axis?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, jelly, I see the little white circle.

            Do you understand that orbiting does NOT require “rotating on its axis”? That is, there are TWO different, distinct, independent motions.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, there are two distinct motions — orbiting and rotation.

            Now, ignore the Earth completely. Focus on the Moon. Do you see the dark side of the Moon rotating around the white circle?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            What you are seeing, jelly, is the result of “orbiting”. That’s why the toy train is such a clear example. From outside the track, you will see all sides of the train, due to its orbit. But, the train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            More clown antics, please.

          • David Appell says:

            Focus ONLY ON THE MOON. Ignore the Earth.

            Do you see the dark patch moving counterclockwise around the Moon’s axis?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Focus on “reality”. The dark patch is NOT rotating relative to the center axis. The entire object is “orbiting”.

            More hilarity, please.

          • David Appell says:

            Are you blind? The dark patch is rotating counterclockwise around the little white circle.

          • David Appell says:

            The moon on the right is NOT rotating the black patch always points in the same direction, about 10 oclock.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, you are STILL confused about “orbiting”. Go back to the toy train. You understood that it is NOT “rotating on its axis”, but yet to someone outside the track, it appears to be turning around. But, it is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”.

            Your continued bewilderment at this simple concept is very revealing.

            And, hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            The Moon isn’t a train. A train can’t rotate around any axis except as it orbits the Earth.

            Do you agree the Moon on the right side of the animation is NOT rotating — that its dark patch always points in the same direction?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, you are hilarious.

            First you say the train can’t “rotate on its axis”. (Which is true.) Then you say it CAN “rotate on its axis, if its “orbiting”.

            There’s nothing funnier than a clown getting tangled up in his own pseudoscience.

            More, please.

          • David Appell says:

            Different axes, Einstein.

          • David Appell says:

            rotate on its axis, if its orbiting.

            Never wrote that.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Now the clown doesn’t know what the meaning of “its” is!

            I think that’s called the “slick willy” defense.

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            I knew you couldn’t show I wrote that. You made that quote up and tried to attribute it to me.

            I notice you’re now avoiding all questions and discussion about the Moon’s rotation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, if you now want to deny your previous statement, that’s okay with me.

            After all, you’re just here to provide entertainment.

            Personally, I think you are hilarious.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And if anyone has some responsible questions about the Moon’s orbital motion, I would be happy to answer.

          • David Appell says:

            Q: what evidence did the astronomical community and NASA use to conclude the Moon is rotating?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s a good question, jelly.

            You should ask them.

          • David Appell says:

            So you don’t know the evidence, but are sure it’s wrong anyway.

            A denier par excellence.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            jelly, the evidence is right in front of you.

            The toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”. The Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            You’re clown par excellence.

            More, please.

          • David Appell says:

            As the train orbits, at the 12 o’clock position relative to Earth the side of the train faces 6 o’clock.

            Half an orbit later, the Moon is in Earth’s 6 o’clock position, and the same side of the train faces 12 o’clock.

            Yes?

            When something faces a different direction all the time, it is rotating?

            Yes?

            Your precious train is rotating. (That’s the only way it could constantly face a different direction.) This animation (on the left) shows this very, very clearly:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

            I’m sure you see the dark patch rotating around the Moon’s small white center circle. But for some reason you try to deny such movement is rotation. Everyone else sees it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The change in direction you are seeing is due to “orbiting”. The train is NOT “rotating on its axis? You do not understand orbital motion.

            You have admitted the train can NOT “rotate on its axis”. But, now you are see the change in direction and are trying to define “orbiting” as “rotating”. Then, you try to claim “rotating” is the same as “rotating on its axis”.

            You are trying to “spin” reality, just as you attempt to “spin” science.

  43. ren says:

    The first day of spring will be cool in North America. The coldest will be where you can see the most ozone.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00961/7xwsv3yjm1cm.png

    • ren says:

      Over the next days, the arctic air will continue to flow over Europe. The snow will fall even in France.

  44. ren says:

    Please see the convergence of a sudden rise in the stratosphere temperature with a strong decrease in total solar radiation (chart of Bob Weber).
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/ju2hn89j5fjo.jpeg

  45. Gunga Din says:

    Perhaps I missed it but just what is this “corrosive fuel”?
    If it’s volatile, will it survive reentry?
    If it does survive reentry, just how much is there?
    Won’t it be spread over a wide area?
    Just what is this “corrosive fuel”?

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      The fuel is likely “hydrazine”, which probably won’t survive reentry.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Gunga Din,

      g is probably right. My guess is that if the satellite is unable to remain in orbit, it may well have run out of fuel for its thrusters, which are required to keep the satellite where it is supposed to be.

      Only a guess, so feel free to give me a whacking if I guessed wrong. I can think of many other reasons for the satellite returning to earth, but I’m an optimist at heart.

      Cheers.

  46. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell wrote (relating to rotation of the Moon) –

    “The orange also isnt free to move around an axis. It has the same issue as the train its the wrong model.”

    Good climatological thinking.

    Not getting the desired result in reality?

    Simple. Just use a model that gives you what you want. Insist everybody use the same model, so they will also get the results you want!

    In case anybody thinks otherwise, I have no dog in the Moon fight. Or should the dog be a cow?

    Cheers.

  47. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell, trying to appear intelligent, wrote –

    “The greenhouse effect arises from the interaction of molecules and radiation.”

    Molecules and radiation definitely interact. All matter interacts with all radiation – no matter is perfectly transparent to any wavelength of radiation (light), no matter how inconvenient you might find this fact.

    Richard Feynman even wrote a little book “QED: The strange theory of light and matter”, all about the interaction between light (radiation) and matter (consisting of atoms and molecules).

    Nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, which of course, David can’t actually explain in terms of the interaction between light and matter. That’s because the GHE doesn’t actually exist.

    David is just trying to sound sciency, having discovered that insulation doesn’t provide any heat, and that a corpse wrapped in a hundred overcoats remains cold and dead. So sad.

    David needs to explain a little, but he can’t – being stupid and ignorant. Cunning enough to try and disguise the fact, I’ll give him that.

    Cheers.

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA….”How do N2 and O2 contribute heat?
    What does that mean exactly?”

    If you put nitrogen in a container and heat the container walls with a flame, the nitrogen will warm through direct conduction via the walls of the container. If you then take the N2 and mix it in with a cooler gas, it will raise the temperature of the cooler gas through collision.

    Think of the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere as being in a container where the surface attracts the gases to the surface. The base of the container is the surface and it is warmed by solar energy. If you could get N2 to remain in a container while you heated the bottom of the container, the nitrogen would warm.

    It will pass that heat to any other gas in the atmosphere just as the other gases will try to pass and receive heat to/from N2. Since N2/O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere it stands to reason those molecules will be doing most of the colliding and carrying most of the heat.

    CO2 at 0.04% will make hardly any difference at all. Dalton’s law and the ideal gas equation make that clear. I don’t know what climate modelers were thinking when they overlooked such basic science. Rather than calculate the amount of heat CO2 at 0.04% could add to the atmosphere they arbitrarily assigned a value.

    I don’t regard climate model as science, more a curiosity.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      The climate modelers use real science. The amount of energy transferred by conduction with CO2 is, as you state, very small. You totally ignore the elephant in the room. The IR that is produced by the CO2 in the atmosphere can be up to 60 W/m^2 that is directed to the surface and absorbed leading the surface to lose heat at a slower rate based upon this energy from CO2 IR.

      I have given you a bunch of links to empirical (measured) values of the amount of energy the GHG and clouds send back to sensors on the ground that are pointed upward to the sky.

      It has considerable range but it is significant and is what leads to an Earth with a much warmer average temperature than the surface of the Moon. Calculated to be around 33 C warmer. That is very significant. The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere would not send any radiant energy back to the surface. Only the small percentage in contact with the surface could exchange energy.

      I think you need to crack open a textbook and avoid the blogs. It will do you some good.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Con-man, CO2 does NOT “produce” heat energy. It absorbs and emits. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. Consequently, it can NOT raise Earth’s temperature.

        And, the reason Earth has more moderate temperatures than the Moon is due to the oceans.

        You just don’t have the technical background to understand.

        But, you probably can washes dishes well enough to hold on to that dead-end job. At least until your comedy routine starts paying better.

      • Bart says:

        Norman –

        “The amount of energy transferred by conduction with CO2 is, as you state, very small.”

        You know, after the silly brouhaha over lunar rotation, that I do not have much sympathy for Gordon’s or g*e*r*a*n’s seat-of-the-pants physical reasoning. But, I think you have gone too far here. Equipartition argues that the amount of energy transferred by collisional activity will be on the order of the amount of energy radiated in the steady state.

        The heat carried aloft by N2/O2 will transfer freely to the vibrational modes of IR radiating molecules. This provides a cooling potential, in opposition to the heating potential from intercepted surface radiation.

        Unfortunately, we cannot run controlled experiments on a planet sized scale to verify any particular hypothesis. That is why I believe that the jury is still out on the GHE. I consider it highly probable that it does work, to some extent, because of that 33C differential for which there does not appear to be a viable alternative explanation.

        However, I suspect that, once convection gets started, it peters out, leaving us in a highly stable configuration in which minor perturbations, such as increases in the concentration of a junior partner in IR radiating elements (far below H2O), have little impact.

        • David Appell says:

          The heat carried aloft by N2/O2 will transfer freely to the vibrational modes of IR radiating molecules.

          Why? CO2’s rotational and vibrational modes absorb infrared; the “heat carried aloft” by N2 and O2 is molecular kinetic energy which is not in the infrared range.

          • Bart says:

            Impacts can stimulate vibration. Eventually, on average, all energy states even out. This is known as Equipartition.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, again, how is the heat in N2 and O2 kinetic energy transferred to GHG vibrational modes? Do those energy values line up? GHGs absorb IR for a reason they have electric dipole moments.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, the equipartion theorem applies to classical systems. Radiation transfer in the atmosphere is a quantum mechanical process, not classical.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”Impacts can stimulate vibration. Eventually, on average, all energy states even out. This is known as Equipartition”.

            **************

            Sounds like a quantum equivalent to Dalton’s law of partial pressures.

            Pressure is related to average kinetic energy in a gas in that the average KE determines the force gas molecules place on a container wall, which is the pressure. If the volume is constant then temperature is directly proportional to pressure.

            Dalton proved that the total pressure is the sum of the partial pressures contributed by the individual gases in a mix. That should mean that the heat contributed by each gas should be equivalent to its partial pressure, which should be equivalent to its partial mass.

            Since CO2 is a contributing factor of 0.04%, that means it should contribute no more heat to the overall mix than 0.04C, or thereabouts.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, Re: Daltons law: again, why are you ignoring quantum mechanics? Is it because you dont understand it?

          • Bart says:

            David – you are barking up the wrong tree. This is like the difference between Newton and Einstein – sure, Newton’s dynamics are less complete, but fully adequate for a wide range of applications.

          • Bart says:

            The main difference between the classical and quantum theories is the freezing out of higher energy states. That prevents equipartition into the higher frequency oscillatory degrees of freedom, which heads off the “ultraviolet catastrophe”. But, equipartition still holds in the lower energy states, and those excited by “longwave” radiation are pretty much by definition lower energy states.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            The main difference between the classical and quantum theories is the freezing out of higher energy states.

            No. There are low-energy states (rotational and vibrational, for example) that are present in quantum theory that don’t exist in classical theory.

            In classical theory a gas is composed of, essentially, tiny billiard balls. They can move (kinetic energy) or rotate as a whole, but that’s it. Whereas in quantum theory the molecules are like tiny tinker toys with new rotations possible and new vibrational states, like the angles of the H atoms off the O2 for water vapor.

            Not to mention, the equipartition theorem assumes thermal equilibrium, which is not currently the cases for our atmosphere.

            N2 and O2 do not interact with IR photons.

          • Bart says:

            “N2 and O2 do not interact with IR photons.”

            That is entirely beside the point. N2 and O2 do interact with other molecules which traffic in IR photons. They can transfer their kinetic energy to the potential energy of the vibrational modes of those IR-active molecules, and that energy can then be radiated away.

          • Bart says:

            “There are low-energy states (rotational and vibrational, for example) that are present in quantum theory that dont exist in classical theory.”

            That is not the case. Classical theory includes rotational and vibrational energies. The only difference is that, in the quantum theory, those energies are quantized.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            Classical theory includes rotational and vibrational energies.

            They don’t contribute to a classical molecule’s energy except as classical degrees of freedom (N): E = N(kT/2).

            Classical molecules do not interact with radiation. GHGs do.

            If N2 and O2 excited GHG IR energy transitions, scientists would have included this long, long ago. Arrenhius would have included it.

          • Bart says:

            David, I don’t know where you are getting this. I am not talking anything revolutionary here. N2 and O2 can pass their translational kinetic energy off to vibrational modes of CO2 molecules by impacting them in a glancing fashion. They can also pick up energy from the vibrational modes this way – it’s a two-way street.

            This is the whole concept behind heat capacity. It is why it takes more heat energy to raise some substances to a given temperature than it does for others.

            It’s not controversial.

        • Snape says:

          Bart

          “The heat carried aloft by N2/O2 will transfer freely to the vibrational modes of IR radiating molecules. This provides a cooling potential, in opposition to the heating potential from intercepted surface radiation.”

          That makes great sense to me. N2/O2 are constantly being heated by the surface but are poor radiators.
          How could they effectively cool other than collision with GHG’s?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”How could they [N2/O2] effectively cool other than collision with GHGs?”

            By continuing to rise as a buoyant mass of warmer air they will eventually reach much thinner air and lose pressure. A loss of pressure is a loss of temperature in a constant volume system.

            They should lose buoyancy when they get to an air pressure where the densities become equivalent. I think by then the molecules will have spread far apart, reducing pressure and temperature.

          • Snape says:

            Gordon

            N2/O2 has been receiving energy from the surface for the last several billion years. You think it’s all still in the atmosphere, just spread out?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake, often you violate the old cliche, “There are no dumb questions”.

          • Bart says:

            You are asking the right questions, Snape.

        • Norman says:

          Bart

          I do like your posts. You are the intelligent skeptic with a science background.

          I may have not stated my case very well. I was agreeing that the 400 molecules per million of CO2 would not hold much energy to exchange with the Earth’s surface. My point is that the radiant energy it absorbs and emits is how it affects climate.

          You may be correct with your assessment that increases in CO2 may not have a large effect.

          It is really hard for me to get down to some good science on it.

          I find some skeptics waste far too much intelligent time to answer the real questions. The made up science does not help anything but they just continue making it up and acting as if it is somehow true and real.

          http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

          From this paper it looks like a doubling of CO2 will have a minor effect on atmospheric emissivity.

          I always go to empirical data to confirm the GHE.
          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ab1d1757e2a7.png

          This is the energy the atmosphere, at this location, is sending down to a sensor at the Earth’s surface. Without GHG this energy would not reach the Earth’s surface.

          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ab1d20c56581.png

          Without GHG the heat lost by the surface would be over 300 W/m^2 rather than less than 100 W/m^2.

          Logic would dictate that a surface losing energy at the rate of 300 W/m^2 will be much colder than one losing 100 W/m^2.

          I think the empirical data proves the GHE exists. Can’t convince some but the evidence is really there. With science the debate is won by evidence and not opinion.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, your mistake here, is assuming the DWIR is warming the surface.

          • David Appell says:

            Why wouldnt DWIR heat the surface? It carries energy.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            So where in my post did I make the claim that “your mistake here, is assuming the DWIR is warming the surface.”

            Where did I assume this? Your lack of knowledge of physics allows you to make up anything you want. So support your false and misleading declaration. State which word I wrote that made the claim you attribute falsely to me?

            I actually state the opposite of what you claim.

            HERE is what I state: “Without GHG the heat lost by the surface would be over 300 W/m^2 rather than less than 100 W/m^2.”

            You falsely make up something I never claimed and attribute it to me. I clearly stated exactly opposite of what you claim I said. I did apologize to you for misrepresentation. I expect the same courtesy from you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you ramble in circles so much that you don’t even understand yourself.

            Here’s your exact quote: “Logic would dictate that a surface losing energy at the rate of 300 W/m^2 will be much colder than one losing 100 W/m^2.”

            Hilarious.

          • Bart says:

            Norman: “I think the empirical data proves the GHE exists.”

            I have no doubt of it, really. But, I do not think it is linear or even necessarily monotonic with concentration. Most would agree with the former, holding that it is a logarithmic relationship. I do not think the actual relationship is known or confirmed.

          • David Appell says:

            “Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,” Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2013GL058456

            Their calculation for CO2 goes from 100 ppmv to 50,000 ppmv. CO2’s radiative forcing starts out as ln(CO2), then eventually becomes ln^2(CO2) at high concentrations.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            No you are wrong again, no surprise, you are wrong far more often than right.

            HERE YOU STATE: “Norm, you ramble in circles so much that you dont even understand yourself.

            Heres your exact quote: Logic would dictate that a surface losing energy at the rate of 300 W/m^2 will be much colder than one losing 100 W/m^2.

            I understand myself completely and there are no rambling circles. It is a fairly simple statement that is quite correct. A surface that is losing energy at a faster rate will be colder than the other. Not sure what you don’t understand. Are you just an idiot? Your posts are so dumb.

            I like Bart’s posts. He is an intelligent skeptic that understand science. You are an idiot with not real points, just mindless comments with no value or apparent reason to post.

            So continue on with your stupid posts. Everyone has some talent. Your talent is high level stupidity and pointless posts.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            whiny, you are so slimy.

            You tried to claim Earth’s losing energy slower would result in an increased temperature.

            Then, you tried to deny what you implied.

            “Slimy-Whiny”. It’s a great name for a climate clown.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You are so dumb you can’t process words or concepts. You can provoke a response from me with some childish attacks on my character. It seems all you are able to do.

            There is such a huge difference between DWIR warming the surface (meaning it alone would raise the surface temperature) and leaving it at a higher temperature than in a case where heat loss was greater.

            I really don’t know why I respond to your juvenile and stupid posts. You are just dumb, face it. You can’t learn, you can’t reason, you can’t read. You can’t process words, you don’t understand concepts.

            AND your idiotic logic is so poor you made this false and misleading claim (did I add to the list you are very dishonest purposefully).
            “You tried to claim Earths losing energy slower would result in an increased temperature.”

            It would have a higher temperature than in the case of losing heat faster, yes that is true. But that does not mean the temperature would increase because the heat loss was less. Only someone as stupid and illogical as you would form such a misguided understanding of some very simple words and easy to understand ideas. You logic is bad, your brain is sad. You make an ass out of yourself with every post.

            Be dumb if you want to, see how many people follow you. Not many, maybe Gordon Robertson and your fantasy friend (J Halp-less who was really you).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Slimy whiny, I saw you responded, but knowing that it is just nonsense rambling, I didn’t read it.

            Maybe you could pound on your keyboard longer. I’m sure something worthwhile might eventually emerge.

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            You can always see when *a*n*g*e*r doesn’t understand something — his comments consist of nothing but name calling and insults. (Somehow he thinks these matter.) We’re seeing those more and more frequently.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “I saw you responded, but knowing that it is just nonsense rambling, I didnt read it.”

            Awesome! That is what I was waiting to hear from you. I don’t want you to read or respond to my posts.

            The less you read of my posts the better. None of your comments are welcome, intelligent, useful or have any meaning.

            Can you promise not to read this one or any future posts I make on this blog? Thanks in advance. I will ignore your posts as well.

            Thanks to God that he is showing mercy!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly pounds out: “his comments consist of nothing but name calling and insults.”

            appelly, why do you write such falsehoods?

            Why do you avoid reality?

            Is that your goal in life, to dodge reality and spread falsehoods?

            You’re doing a great job!

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon: Yes, most of the atmosphere is, ultimately, warmed by the Sun, via conduction and convection.

      But that doesn’t account for the entire observed temperature (288 K), only about 255 K of it.

      Where does the rest come from?

      CO2 at 0.04% will make hardly any difference at all.

      You’ve never proved that, and only want to believe it. Belief isn’t science.

      Daltons law and the ideal gas equation make that clear.

      Again, Dalton’s Law ignores quantum interactions of matter and radiation.

      Rather than calculate the amount of heat CO2 at 0.04% could add to the atmosphere they arbitrarily assigned a value.

      Another of your many lies. You lie without shame.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        appelly, the “255 K” is a calculated figure. It has NO meaning to Earth’s temperature. That figure is used in pseudoscience to claim that CO2 is heating the planet. Such nonsense makes for great comedy.

        But, you already knew that. ..

        • David Appell says:

          Yes its calculated (everything is), but that science is pretty simple. And so what?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “so what” is a useful term in pseudoscience. It is used often when all else fails.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            Did you have a point about the 255 K? PS: climate models give the same result. See Lacis et al Science 2010.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The “point” is that “255 K” is a calculated value. It has no real significance in science. It is only used in pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, the 255 K does have a significance — it’s the Earth’s brightness temperature, the blackbody temperature as measured from outside the atmosphere.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Thanks for agreeing with me, jelly. It’s a theoretical calculated value, with no relevance to reality.

          • David Appell says:

            I didn’t agree with you — the 255 K does have a significance. It’s what a distant observer would measure as the Earth’s blackbody temperature.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “distant observer”, “black body”

            Translation: “calculated value, little to no significance to reality”.

          • David Appell says:

            Brightness temperatures are what astronomers measure for other planets, including exoplanets. So, yes, they’re important.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Stay on this planet, jelly. You’re confused enough already.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Did you have a point about the 255 K? PS: climate models give the same result. See Lacis et al Science 2010″.

            You are aware that climate models are programmed by social scientists who have a poor understanding of physics and science in general???

            GIGO.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, you at least consistently ridiculous, Ill give you that.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Why do you have to make up stuff? You know that is the definition of “Fake News”

            I looked up one group that programs climate models. The head of the project is a PhD in geoscience, not social science. Where do you come up with your material? Why do you post it with no evidence?

            https://tinyurl.com/y7wyqljd

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, maybe Gordon is referring to political views, aka “belief systems”, which soon becomes pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “maybe Gordon is referring to political views, aka belief systems, which soon becomes pseudoscience.”

            And maybe he is not. It would be nice if you allowed him to answer rather than your own speculation.

            I still do not know why you have an impulsive desire to call valid science pseudoscience.

            I think you should email NASA people and ask them if the Moon rotates on its axis.

            The way you think on the Moon, if it were locked it would orbit at the same rate the Earth spins which would be around 24 hours. Then you could have a point that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. If you do research and ask you will find you are wrong and a Master of Pseudoscience.

            I rather keep to real science and ignore your made up version. You might be proud of it, but it does stink up this blog. Fake Science courtesy of g*e*r*a*n. Make up whatever he wants and attack anyone who does not blindly accept his false and misleading ideas. Cult programming by g*e*r*a*n and company. How many devoted converts have you made. Not many from what I read. Most people think you are a deranged moron that doesn’t have a clue about physics. They are correct when they state this about you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you are lost, AGAIN.

            In your worm-infested head, you believe a toy train is “rotating on its axis”, as it orbits an oval track. But the train is constrained by the tracks. It can NOT “rotate on its axis”!

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            The spherical train the Moon is rotating on its axis, once per orbital cycle. Thats the only way it could always face the Earth. When the Moon is in the 12 oclock position, its Earth-facing side first points to 6 oclock, then as it orbits, to 9 oclock position, then to 12 oclock, the to 3 oclock, then back to 6 oclock. It rotates about its axis.

            I am not sure you understand what rotation about a bodys axis is you keep confusing it with the orbital axis.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, your comment is hilariously unintelligible.

            “The spherical train the Moon is rotating on its axis” ???

            Try again, or should I just consider it more clown humor?

          • David Appell says:

            You didn’t address my argument.

            Is there a technical error in it?
            Is it an accurate description of the Moon?

            See, here on the left, the black patch moving counterclockwise around the little white circle? That’s rotation.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Clown jelly appelly, I know you want a career in climate comedy. But if you expect an answer, please define “spherical train”.

            Thanks, jelly.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “But the train is constrained by the tracks. It can NOT rotate on its axis!”

            So do you believe that the Moon is constrained by something to prevent it from rotating? Hmm.

            The situations are not the same. The train rotates around the center point but not on its own axis since that motion is restricted. A car in parking lot as it drives in a circle will both rotate on its axis as it moves around. Different situations require different thought processes.

            What do you think would prevent the Moon from spinning on its axis as it orbits the Earth?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            whiny shows up to assist jelly. A whiny-jelly duet! Hilarious.

            This is a great year in climate comedy.

            whiny asks: “So do you believe that the Moon is constrained by something to prevent it from rotating? Hmm.”

            [The poor whiny con-man does not even understand his own false religion. He “took astronomy” but does not know that “institutionalized science” claims the Moon is “tidally locked”. So, it can NOT rotate on its axis.]

            whiny, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. It is “orbiting”.

            whiny claims: “A car in parking lot as it drives in a circle will both rotate on its axis as it moves around.”

            NO whiny, a car driving in a tight circle is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”. You still don’t have a clue about orbital motions.

            whiny continues with his nonsense: “What do you think would prevent the Moon from spinning on its axis as it orbits the Earth?”

            Lack of rotational angular momentum.

            More clown humor, please.

          • David Appell says:

            Your insults are getting worse. Stressed?

            the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. It is orbiting.

            You clearly don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating.”

            Did you ever study classical mechanics, rotational mechanics and planetary motion?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            You are correct. g*e*r*a*n has turned into a mush of unfunny and low level attacks. I guess he has run low on material. Maybe his hero Joe Postma might sell him some insults for a little bitcoin.

            I have intentionally worked to ignore the childish one, he is like a baby that must interrupt with his cries for attention. I have requested many times he not reply to comments I do not directly make to him. It does not help. He needs and craves attention so I just tell him he is an idiot. What else can you say to someone who posts with such little knowledge of science. It makes you cringe when you read his posts. Insults are all he knows but like you said they are not very good these days. Maybe he drank too much and can’t think well enough to show some cleverness in his insults.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Okay, I’ve removed all references to your clown humor. Now, just deal with the facts:

            The Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. It is “orbiting”.

            A car, driving in a tight circle, is “orbiting”, NOT “rotating on its axis”. You still dont have a clue about orbital motions.

            Hope that helps.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Hey whiny, did it ever occur to you that what you claim about me is more exactly true about YOU?

            Hilarious.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”But that doesnt account for the entire observed temperature (288 K), only about 255 K of it.

        Where does the rest come from?”

        *********

        According to Watt (no relation to Anthony), who was an expert on IR radiation, The heat scavenged by N2/O2 is retained for a lengthy period of time, presumably because N2/O2 does not emit well at terrestrial temperatures. Watt thought that a better explanation than IR from GHGs.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon wrote:
      I dont know what climate modelers were thinking when they overlooked such basic science.

      They were thinking about the interaction of atmospheric molecules and radiation.

      Why do you ignore that, Gordon? How about an honest answer?

  49. ren says:

    The temperature at Hudson Bay is still very low.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/kdmspdsfvkl3.png

  50. ren says:

    Another heavy snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/xyp52ylbjy4t.png

  51. La Pangolina says:

    David Appell says:
    March 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM

    Gordon Robertson says:
    That means N2/O2 should contribute roughly 99% of atmospheric heat and CO2 about 0.04%.

    How do N2 and O2 contribute heat?

    *
    N2 and O2 do not contribute to atmospheric heat: they are heated.

    And they are not heated by conduction taking place directly at surface: air is one of the best insulators and therefore cannot propagate much surface heat by conduction.

    Vertical convection and horizontal poleward advection are by far the most important atmospheric heat transfer mechanisms.

    But… they can only take place when the liquids or gases to which these processes apply are themselves warmer than the places they shall move to. Only air warmer than the layers above it will move up, and from there to the colder poles.

    N2 and O2 absorb together, though being in the atmosphere 10^3 resp 10^4 times more abundant than H2O and CO2, 10^5 resp. 10^6 times less and have 66 times less absorp-tion lines than the latter two.

    N2/O2: http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521378782802.jpg

    H2O/CO2: http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521379124572.jpg

    { For the sake of completeness: Earths OLR to space is, according to M. Höpfner & al. (2012)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051409/pdf

    reduced by about 0.3 W/m2 (of about 235) through collision-induced rotovibrational transitions through absorp-tion bands in the IR range. That we might compare with the effect of N2O or CH4, but not with those of H2O and CO2. }

    If there were no H2O and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, Earths temperature would not be very far from that of outer space, as Earths LW radiation in response to Suns SW radiation would only infinitesimally interact with N2 and O2 and thus nearly all of it would directly reach outer space.

    What does then happen with all these lovely IR photons?

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521570141530.jpg

    ‘It’s fun to watch.’, some would say.

    • ren says:

      It is a pity that these “photons” can not warm up Europe.
      http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00961/daczin8obfsh.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”How do N2 and O2 contribute heat?

      *
      N2 and O2 do not contribute to atmospheric heat: they are heated”.

      *********

      It’s a pity your understanding of chemistry wrt gases is lacking. If N2/O2 pick up heat by conduction at the surface, and the heated N2/O2 rises, they carry that heat aloft via convection.

      Same thing if you consider the relation of air pressure to temperature at the surface. Since the surface air is 99% N2/O2, it stands to reason they are the predominant gases warming the surface air prior to it being warmed by the solar-heated surface.

      The increased pressure on N2/O2 near the surface warms them due to gravity.

      They likely heat CO2 molecules via collision since they outnumber them 2500 to 1, based on a 400 ppmv for CO2. It would be nearly impossible for 1 CO2 molecule amid 2500 N2/O2 molecules to miss a collision.

      Your inference is that one CO2 molecule can collide with all 2500 molecules surrounding them and heat each molecule by collision. Highly unlikely.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”If there were no H2O and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, Earths temperature would not be very far from that of outer space, as Earths LW radiation in response to Suns SW radiation would only infinitesimally interact with N2 and O2 and thus nearly all of it would directly reach outer space”.

      ***********

      So you’re telling me that if I fill a metal cannister with N2 and heat the canister with a torch, that the N2 will not heat up.

      I guess we’d better throw out the ideal gas equation.

      Alternately, your telling me that the tires on my car don’t really heat up in summer and cause the tires to expand. Or, you are claiming the 0.04% of CO2 in the tires is causing the expansion of several pounds PSI.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. you’d fit right in at NASA GISS and/or NOAA. They are looking for people like you.

        Requirements:

        1)a desire to be a scientist but lacking scientific knowledge. They don’t want to program models with real science, they’d project no warming.

        2)a strong need to appeal to authority.

        3)the ability to accept dogma without asking questions.

        4)a strong need to smear other scientists who don’t agree with you.

        5)a need to pervert the peer review process.

        6) a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

        7) a believe that opinion is as valid as observed data.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Very good, Gordon.

          No, it’s “excellent”!

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:

          Requirements:
          1)a desire to be a scientist but lacking scientific knowledge.

          Coming from you, Gordon, this is beautifully ridiculous. Almost art.

          When did you come to believe that you know more than the people who study science constantly, do research, discuss with peers every day, write textbooks and papers, and go to conferences several times a year?

          Really, when did you figure that out?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”When did you come to believe that you know more than the people who study science constantly, do research, discuss with peers every day, write textbooks and papers, and go to conferences several times a year?”

            John Christy of UAH attended several IPCC reviews with the types you describe. He observed that some of them seemed to be going along to get along, that they had arrived with preconceived conclusions.

            Where did you ever get the idea that everyone with a degree doing science has integrity, or the basic ability to do good, insightful, unbiased science?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            appelly, the simple test is a toy train on an oval track. If a person does not understand that simple motion, that person is NOT a scientist, and should not have access to any sharp objects.

  52. ren says:

    The temperature above the 80th parallel is already below the average from 1958-2002.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png

  53. ren says:

    Another snowstorm in the northeast of the US.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/b8f1ubxyxnjh.png

  54. ren says:

    The temperature in North America in the first night of spring.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/grqr5nxndeed.png

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA….”CO2 at 0.04% will make hardly any difference at all.

    Youve never proved that, and only want to believe it. Belief isnt science.

    Daltons law and the ideal gas equation make that clear.

    Again, Daltons Law ignores quantum interactions of matter and radiation”.

    ***********

    I proved CO2 at 0.04% cannot add significant heat to the atmosphere using Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Your rebuttal is that Dalton is no good because it ignores quantum interactions of matter and radiation.

    I guess then, we might as well disqualify most processes in chemistry because neither do they heed quantum theory. That applies to thermodynamics as well, and most of physics. No one uses quantum theory in the real world.

    Macro processes don’t require quantum theory. Clausius knew that in 1850, why don’t you know it today?

    H plus 2O = H20

    There you have it, just formed water with no quantum theory.

    E = IR…just calculated the voltage in a circuit given the current and load. No quantum theory.

    PV = nRT…no quantum theory required.

    1st law of thermodynamics…U = Q plus U ….no QT.

    I can do most chemistry, most physics, and all electrical engineering and I don’t need to even know quantum theory. Studied a year of astronomy and geology…no quantum theory.

    Where the heck do you use QT? Same for time dilation, and space-time…no practical use for it.

    • ren says:

      It is still snowing in the northeast of the US.
      http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00961/xb7vqpl54vv0.png
      Regards.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      typo…”1st law of thermodynamicsU = Q plus U .no QT”.

      Must have been having a bad night. Of course, Q = U + W. I had been looking at an alternate form expressed in terms of U as in U = Q – W. Better write it as U = Q minus W to keep WordPress happy.

      The 1st law equates heat to work and internal energy U. However, as explained by Clausius, U represents both heat and work internally. Part of the heat added to a solid body is consumed to do the work maintaining the vibration of atoms. If more heat is added than required, the atoms consume it and begin vibrating more rapidly. Add enough heat and the atomic bonds being to break and the object melts or disintegrates.

      Have no idea why the 1st law is equated to the conservation of energy theory per se. That theory applies to all energy, not just the thermal and mechanical energy represented here. However, the balance between work and heat must be conserved.

      Even when work done = 0, and Q = U, there is still work down between atoms in a solid as they vibrate.

    • Bart says:

      “Same for time dilation, and space-timeno practical use for it.”

      Television (precise focusing for extra-sharp pictures), Doppler radar, laser gyroscopes, GPS, atom smashers, atom bombs… yeah, no practical use whatsoever.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bart…”Same for time dilation, and space-timeno practical use for it.

        Television (precise focusing for extra-sharp pictures), Doppler radar, laser gyroscopes, GPS, atom smashers, atom bombs yeah, no practical use whatsoever”.

        **********

        None of the above use the mythical time dilation or space-time theory. They all work on macro-level physics processes.

        -Precise focusing of any TV signal has to come from the camera end or special processing of the received electronic signal. Absolutely nothing to do with time.

        -doppler radar does not process time, it processes differences in changes in the energy of the signal which is converted to voltages.

        -lasers deal with EM, not time

        -GPS as I explained uses sync pulses and data built into the signal to sync the clocks on sats and ground stations. That is, electronic signals are processed, nothing to do with time.

        -atom smashers??…I presume you mean colliders. Nothing to do with time….real, physical particles are colliding.

        -A-bombs are about atom particles and releasing the energy within, nothing to do with time.

        • Bart says:

          Wrong.

          – Electrons accelerated in cathode ray tubes reach up to 30% of the speed of light, causing significant deviation of the paths predicted by Newtonian mechanics.

          – The Doppler effect for electromagnetic radiation is not like the Doppler effect for sound, because the speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of source or observer. That requires variable time.

          – EM is Lorentz covariant. It’s built right into Maxwell’s equations.

          – GPS is totally based upon the time it takes a signal to get from transmitter to receiver, which depends upon the satellite’s state of motion, as well as its position relative to the mass of the Earth. If they were not corrected prior to launch based on precise calculations from General Relativity, the clocks on board GPS satellites would run about 0.44 nanoseconds/second faster than those on Earth, making precise positioning impossible.

          – The paths of particles in circular accelerators conform to the equations of Special Relativity.

          – E = mc^2 is entirely a result of relativistic mechanics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”the clocks on board GPS satellites would run about 0.44 nanoseconds/second faster than those on Earth, making precise positioning impossible”.

            Your notion of time dilation is purely theoretical and no one has EVER measured time dilation.

            Read my lips: TIME CANNOT BE MEASURED…IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!

            There is no such thing as time dilation in relativity. Some idiot took Einstein’s theories and presumed they could be applied to time, which is a parameter, not a driving force or something that can be stretched or shrunk.

            Relativity lacks real, physical meaning. Einstein did not intend the stupid interpretations that followed his reasoning. Relativity theory is only a tool for examining bodies in motion from another body in motion. Time, a human invention, serves only to keep tract of change FOR HUMAN OBSERVATION.

            All that is real in such a situation is the mass in motion and the force(s) driving or affecting the masses.

            Read my lips: time is not real and it affects nothing that is real. There is no dimension of time and space-time does not exist. Unlike what some modern scientists are spouting, gravity is a force, not related to fictitious space-time.

            Doppler shifting is used in astronomy all the time. By capturing the spectra of a star and comparing it to known spectra for similar stars it can be determined whether the spectra is red or blue shifted. Therefore the motion of the star wrt to Earth can be determined using Doppler for light.

            No time dilation required. Speed of light not a concern.

            The paths of particles in circular accelerators respond only to real forces, like the magnetic fields used to direct them. Time has no effect on them because TIME IS NOT REAL!!! It is an invention of humans based on the rotational period of the Earth.

            No time dilation required.

            “Electrons accelerated in cathode ray tubes reach up to 30% of the speed of light, causing significant deviation of the paths predicted by Newtonian mechanics”.

            Where do you get this rubbish? Electrons accelerated in a cathode tube are guided with great precision by magnetic fields applied from a coil (yoke) or plates (oscilloscope).

            I have worked with this stuff in-depth directly. I have set up the convergence on colour TVs where three electron beams have to be directed onto microscopic colour triads on the screen.

            You are out of touch with the real world. There are no circuits in TVs or oscilloscopes that deal with time dilation. It’s done with magnetic deflection featuring individual beam controls for focusing the three beams onto a triad.

            Convergence has to be dynamic since the beams are swept at a horizontal scan rate of 15,625 Khz. While the beams are being swept horizontally, they are swept vertically at a lower scan rate of 60 Hz. The beams are closest to perfect focus at mid screen and lose focus somewhat at extremes of the scan.

            No time dilation required.

            BTW…Sony developed a system of aligning the colour bars, red, blue, and green, in a horizontal line so only one electron beam was required. They called it Trinitron.

            Seriously, what do you think goes on in a cathode ray driver? Do you think there are circuits detecting time dilation and adjusting for it?

            ” EM is Lorentz covariant. Its built right into Maxwells equations”.

            EM is an electromagnetic wave with an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It doesn’t care about Lorentz, Maxwell, or time.

            EM is propagated by an electron…no time dilation required.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says: TIME IS NOT REAL!!!

            You forgot to add a scientific reference, or is it based on original research?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are making things up again. I hope in your delusional thought you might realize just because you make a strong declaration “Time Does Not Exist!” Does not make it so!

            Rate of change exists and can be observed and logged. The only part
            humans played in this activity is to create a standard to be able to measure the rate. The rate exists outside humans. The measurement is what man invented. You get so confused by concepts. You equate the measured value to the concept of change. This is really flawed and poor reasoning.

            You could also argue length, width and height do not exist because people invented measuring devices like the foot, yard, meter etc.

            The concept of length exists outside the measurement. The measured value just give uniformity to the observation. Like time, rate of change, the measured value we attribute to it does not create a rate of change it just gives it some sort of uniformity that can make it usable in science.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Relativity explains why gold is yellow color and mercury is a liquid.

            You are not really trying to learn anything are you. You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Your points are very poor and not logically thought through.

            Here this is what Bart is trying to tell you but you shut your mind down and won’t listen. Open up, listen and learn. Scientists are not these horrible dishonest people that are out to deceive Gordon Robertson and only you have figured this out and are out to “save the world” from these evil scientists that make up time.

            https://www.livescience.com/58245-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

          • La Pangolina says:

            Bart says:
            March 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM

            *

            Thanks Bart for confirming what I wrote concerning Robertson’s nonsense about GPS, clocks in motion, and Einsteins relativity theory:

            1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293335

            2. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293336

            You clearly see from his answers to these comments, e.g.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293504

            and from his answers to your comments in this thread that Robertson is an ignorant, arrogant and incompetent person.

            He is a boaster claiming ‘experience with GPS’ but in fact has no visible knowledge in the field.

            And be sure that the following free downloadable, validated copy of Einstein’s original publication by Methuen & Co Ltd

            https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

            Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920

            will not sufficient to break his stubborn denialism, even though it is cleary written there by Albert Einstein that

            As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more
            slowly
            than when at rest.

            See the abstract in

            4GP.ME/bbtc/1521914201625.pdf

            If Robertson was a bit courageous, he would write such nonsense comments e.g. at Climate Etc. I imagine the reactions of some retired physics professors!

            Even Tallbloke’s blog master would would kick him pretty hard off.

            **

            And by the way thanks as well for your sound comment a bit more upthread

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/chinese-satellite-filled-with-corrosive-fuel-will-probably-hit-the-ocean/#comment-293436

          • La Pangolina says:

            I forgot a ‘little detail’:

            https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Gordon Robertson says: TIME IS NOT REAL!!!

            You forgot to add a scientific reference, or is it based on original research?”

            **********

            It’s based on using your brain, especially the God-given awareness with which you were born.

            I have given you the clues, just put them to the test using your own awareness.

            Of course, if you still believe the Sun rises each morning and sets each evening, as in the Sun is in orbit around the Earth, you’ll never get it.

            If you cannot ‘SEE’ that time is based on the Earth’s rotational period, you are a lost soul who likely believes that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can super-warm the surface to the point of catastrophe.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You are making things up again. I hope in your delusional thought you might realize just because you make a strong declaration Time Does Not Exist! Does not make it so!”

            **********

            Norman, you are seriously stupid.

            I have asked anyone who cares to reply to show me where time is located. How do I find it, where do I look? Where is this mysterious dimension through which we are allegedly moving?

            I have also pointed out how we humans invented time based on a sub-division of the time it takes the Earth to complete one rotation on its axis.

            A few centuries ago, sailors had a hard time locating themselves longitudinally as they sailed the oceans. They could located themselves latitudinally by observing the position of the Sun in the sky at mid-day, when it was positioned halfway between horizons. They could not locate themselves longitudinally without some kind of dead-reckoning.

            What they needed was a chronometer, a very accurate clock that could be synched to Greenwich Mean Time. Then, using the position of stars, they could pin-point where they were.

            Why did they not simply sync to this mysterious time you believers seem to think is out there? Why did we humans have to divide the planet into 24 time zones?

            Hint #1: There is no phenomenon called time to which we can sync.

            Hint #2: time is based on the rotational period of the planet. It turns at a precise rate. Invent a machine that can be synced to the Earth’s period of rotation.

            That’s what we did.

            Hint #3:

            http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/sidereal.html

            “Sidereal time is the hour angle of the vernal equinox, the ascending node of the ecliptic on the celestial equator. The daily motion of this point provides a measure of the rotation of the Earth with respect to the stars, rather than the Sun”.

            So, tell me Norman, why is sidereal time calculated based on the rotation of the earth wrt the stars as opposed to wrt the Sun?

            Why would we care a bout a difference in time? As the Earth revolves around the Sun, each morning the point of so-called sunrise changes due to our orbit by 1.00273790935 of a day wrt the Sun as compared to the background stars.

            Do you still not see it? We base the second on a sub-division of the day, which is the time, as measured on a clock, it takes the Earth to complete one rotation.

            We invented the clock, first as a sundial to track the Sun in the sky, then became more sophisticated and developed a spring-driven machine to track the Sun over a complete rotation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Thanks Bart for confirming what I wrote concerning Robertsons nonsense about GPS, clocks in motion, and Einsteins relativity theory:”

            **********

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

            ***********

            Thanks for link to big E. and relativity.

            On page 23 of 115, Einstein states the meaning of time in physics as the position of hands on a clock. He makes no reference at this point to time being anything else, especially not a mysterious 4th dimension.

            Clocks are synched to the rotational period of the Earth, not to a mysterious phenomenon called time.

            A bit earlier, he claimed light travels at 300,000 km/sec but that all colours must travel at the same speed. Apparently he did not know that colour is added by the eye and the light has no colour, it is comprised of different frequencies/wavelengths of EM.

            I am not not-picking Einstein, I know he knew that EM has specific frequencies/wavelength, I just found it somewhat imprecise to make such a claim while developing an important theory.

            That’s generally not true with EM overall. Through fibre optic cable there is a tendency for different wavelengths of light to propagate at different speeds. With radio transmission, lower frequency signals will bend around horizons and travel right around the planet in some instances. Higher frequency signals like those in FM and TV have line of sight transmission capabilities only. They will not bend around a horizon.

            Stay tuned, I’ll be back.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            typo….”I am not not-picking Einstein…”

            is obviously “…nit-picking…”.

            ******

            binny…”As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more
            slowly than when at rest”.

            That SHOULD read, “As a consequence of its motion, TO AN OBSERVER, the clock goes more slowly than when at rest”.

            This problem needs to be addressed. There is nothing in the mechanics of a clock, whether a rusty old windup clock, a digital clock, or an atomic clock, that should be affected by the clock traveling at the speed of light.

            The only one affected by that situation would be a human observer. This is relativity theory but relative to what? To a human observer!!!

            There is no point talking about relativity theory unless you are referencing the human mind. Nothing else cares about relativity. It’s all about how humans see relative motion while standing still or moving in a separate reference frame.

            Only a human could see a change in time on a clock since the human mind has great difficulty adjusting to relative motion. We have trouble seeing that the Sun does not rise in the morning, that the horizon is moving relative to the Sun.

            Early in the pdf on relativity by E., he points out that the distance between two points on a straight line is relative. In engineering drawing classes we spent a lot of time determining true lengths on bodies of differing shapes. A line of 1 foot can appear with a length of 1 inch on certain bodies from certain angles. We learned how to orient the body so we could measure the true length.

            In geometry classes we are taught that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. It’s called PLANE geometry and all shapes are viewed on a flat plane. It’s not true for a triangle drawn on a sphere.

          • Svante says:

            Is this a prank a’la g*e*r*a*n, designed to stir us up?

          • La Pangolina says:

            Robertson

            You can write all the nonsense trash you want.

            Doesn’t change anything, with one exception: your lenghty, redundant rubbish makes the threads less lisible.

            And stop right now to stupidly calling me Binny, I’m NOT Bindidon.

            rjk

          • Bart says:

            Gordon Robertson @ March 24, 2018 at 4:38 PM

            “Clocks are synched to the rotational period of the Earth, not to a mysterious phenomenon called time.”

            There are different standards of time.

            UT1 is universal time synchronized to the rotation period of the Earth. This rotation period changes over time, as the planet redistributes its mass, or is acted upon by torques induced by other celestial bodies.

            UTC is universal time synchronized to atomic oscillations on the Earth. It is periodically updated with leap second shifts to keep it within +/- 1 second of UT1.

            Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB) is referenced to the barycenter of the solar system. It runs a bit faster than UTC since its reference is far removed from the Earth’s gravity well.

            “Through fibre optic cable there is a tendency for different wavelengths of light to propagate at different speeds.”

            The speed of light is constant in a vaccum, and that is the universal speed limit. It is not constant in refractive materials, and is wavelength dependent in dispersive materials.

            Gordon Robertson @ March 24, 2018 at 5:09 PM

            “There is nothing in the mechanics of a clock, whether a rusty old windup clock, a digital clock, or an atomic clock, that should be affected by the clock traveling at the speed of light.”

            That’s what they thought in the 19th century. The Michaelson-Morely experiment invalidated that point of view. Today, it is commonplace to observe the changes in the rates of clocks relative to one another based upon their relative speeds and positions relative to massive objects.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart….re your defined time formats:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

            “The second is the SI base unit of time, commonly understood and historically defined as 1/86,400 of a day this factor derived from the division of the day first into 24 hours, then to 60 minutes and finally to 60 seconds each”.

            “Though the original definition of the unit was based upon the division of the Earth’s rotation cycle, the current definition of the second as agreed upon in the current formal definition of the SI system is instead based upon a much steadier timekeeper the atomic clock”.

            **********

            Please note…atomic clocks vibrate at a very regular rate therefore their frequency does not vary. In order to dilate time, you’d have to affect the atomic forces and interactions that cause the vibration.

            “Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of cesium-133 to vibrate between two energy states”.

            Even though atomic clocks are very accurate they have to be synchronized to a ‘known’ time such as GMT. Atoms know nothing about human time based system and they can only serve as extremely accurate oscillators. They vibrate at frequencies much higher than the second and would be of no use to anyone as a time base if the frequency was not divided down using digital dividers.

            All the time formats you listed are based on the rotational period of the Earth. When you introduce a new system of time you cannot simply throw out the old system. You must adapt the new to the old. Therefore atomic clocks were adapted to the second, which is based on the rotation of the planet.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”There is nothing in the mechanics of a clock, whether a rusty old windup clock, a digital clock, or an atomic clock, that should be affected by the clock traveling at the speed of light.

            Thats what they thought in the 19th century. The Michaelson-Morely experiment invalidated that point of view. Today, it is commonplace to observe the changes in the rates of clocks relative to one another based upon their relative speeds and positions relative to massive objects”.

            ***********

            The Mickelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with clock rates. It was set up to detect an aether and it claimed no evidence of one. Dayton Miller disagreed.

            Any clocks not synchronized to GMT will run on different times. The notion that a clock running at different fractions of the speed of light run at different times is trash science.

            I have lost respect for Einstein after reading his book on relativity. He was completely ignorant of the fact that time has no existence and that his presumption that time from the hands on a clock affected anything physically is absolutely bush league.

            He described two reference frames, giving time a dimension in each which is imaginary. Then he proceeded to treat the imaginary dimension of time as if it is real.

            Lorenz screwed up just as badly, he arranged his transform between reference frames with the speed of light built into it in such a manner that the speed of light remained constant in both frames.

            That’s absurd. We know from the Doppler effect on light that the velocity of the body emitting the light affects the observed frequency of the light (red/blue shift). That means the apparent velocity of light to an observer is affected by the velocity of the reference frame.

            The mistake that has been made in relativity is presuming the time introduced by the observed has an effect on the physical phenomena being observed. An understandable yet juvenile mistake.

            Einstein admitted to ignoring his children in the name of science. Whereas he generally came across as a compassionate person, which he likely was, he also comes across as someone completely lacking in certain facets of awareness. No one with complete awareness could ever mistake time for a real force in nature.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            “atomic clocks are very accurate”
            “Atoms know nothing about human time based system”.

            So there is a time that has nothing to do with us?

          • Bart says:

            “In order to dilate time, youd have to affect the atomic forces and interactions that cause the vibration.”

            Or, you could just scale the output reading. That’s what we have to do with clocks in orbit on satellites, to make sure the readings remain synchronized with clocks on the ground. That is because time evolves differently in space than on the ground.

            For circular orbits, the dividing line is at about 1/2 Earth radius altitude. Below that altitude, clocks run slower than on Earth due to the time dilation from relative velocity. Above that altitude, clocks run faster, due to the reduction in gravitational curvature. These differentials have to be carefully compensated, or many satellites could not perform their function.

            This is a verifiable, observable fact. It is used every second of every day to make things work properly. Your protestations are simply naive and uninformed.

            “All the time formats you listed are based on the rotational period of the Earth.”

            They are referenced to UT1 for ease of translating between them, but they are not dependent upon the rotation of the Earth. The rotation rate of the Earth is not an objective standard, as it varies in significantly unpredictable fashion.

            “The Mickelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with clock rates.”

            Incorrect. If the speed of light is the same no matter what speed you are going, then something has to give. That something is the rate of time.

            “I have lost respect for Einstein after reading his book on relativity.”

            I’m sure Einstein will be devastated.

            “We know from the Doppler effect on light that the velocity of the body emitting the light affects the observed frequency of the light (red/blue shift). That means the apparent velocity of light to an observer is affected by the velocity of the reference frame.”

            No, it doesn’t. The wavelength shifts inversely to the frequency so that the speed always remains the same.

  56. ren says:

    Still frost and snowfall in France, Spain, Germany.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren….”Still frost and snowfall in France, Spain, Germany”.

      That’s Angela Merkel’s fault. She is probably writing to this blog as binny.

      Her and Theresa May, the Margaret Thatcher wannabee of the UK, are trying to find a way to blame it in Putin.

      BTW…it was Margaret Thatcher as UK PM who started this anthropogenic warming bs. She influenced the IPCC to hire her friend, John Houghton, a climate modeler, as the first co-chairman. Ever since, the IPCC has been run under a cloud of pseudo-science and political intrigue.

  57. ren says:

    The ice cover on Lake Superior on 22/03/2018 is 61 percent.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00961/fwckj1hki4y4.gif

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”The ice cover on Lake Superior on 22/03/2018 is 61 percent”.

      Since this is from NOAA you can raise the ice cover 50% at least.

  58. ren says:

    The great snowstorm is approaching the Great Lakes.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/3amdwpo2huxx.png

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    There is another thread discussing how stupid I am with my theories about time and relativity. It was getting long so I moved down here.

    I have no real interest in discussing time or relativity on Roy’s blog and I hope Roy will forgive this indiscretetion. I feel strongly, however, that the absolute misunderstanding of time and relativity that exists parallels the absolute misunderstanding that prevails about catastrophic global warming theory.

    It seems those who are willing to swallow the junk science about catastrophic climate change are also willing to be outraged about challenges to time and relativity THEORY.

    I have claimed there is little use for relativity theory or the garbage science of space-time theory based on it. Here is a quote from Einstein himself on relativity theory:

    from page 107 of 115 (Index) of the article by Einstein at. He is talking about the agreement between Newtonian physics and special relativity theory:

    “This agreement goes so far, that up to the preseat [present???] we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead, and this despite the profound difference in the fundamental assumptions of the two theories”.

    He seems to be saying, in essence, that deductions based on relativity theory cannot be investigated other than a few cases. Also, whatever is claimed in relativity theory can be proved independently using Newtonian physics.

    I have always wondered what the big deal is about relativity theory. For the basic principles, all you need are two coordinate systems, one marked x,y,z,t and the other marked x’,y’.z’,t’ (there’s your space-time). You calculate that motion along the x-axis, for sake of simplicity, using x = vt, where v is the motion of the particle. Then you subtract or add that to motion on x’ of the other frame.

    It’s not that simple on more complex systems but there is nothing that cannot be worked out using Newtonian physics.

    It must be kept firmly in mind that eventually relativity theory becomes about the observer from frame x,y,z,t. It seems to me Albert has forgotten to add that. When you start talking about metre length rods changing size on a frame moving at a relative velocity, you need to make it clear that the change in length is due only to an illusion in the human observer’s mind.

    More on that later.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      later.

      The light just went on. Bart mentioned the Lorentz transformation the other day and I just looked it up because Einstein referred to it.

      P. 32/115 at:

      https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

      At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation there is an explanation of the Lorentz transformation:

      “They supersede the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). The Galilean transformation is a good approximation only at relative speeds much smaller than the speed of light. Lorentz transformations have a number of unintuitive features that do not appear in Galilean transformations. For example, they reflect the fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events, but always such that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. The invariance of light speed is one of the postulates of special relativity.

      Historically, the transformations were the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived before special relativity”.

      **********

      From above…”Lorentz transformations have a number of unintuitive features that do not appear in Galilean transformations. For example, they reflect the fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events….”

      ************

      It becomes perfectly clear that the Lorentz transformation is based on the human observer’s delusions and that they have perverted time and space in order to keep the speed of light the same in all reference frames. In other words, time dilation is an abomination invented to assure the speed of light remains constant.

      Talk about fudged math.

      It’s vitally important to understand that. Theorists have altered time, which does not exist, to satisfy delusions created by the human mind experiencing relative motion.

      If anyone believes that a metre length rod placed on a different frame of reference can change length, or a clock can run slower or faster, because it it traveling near the speed of light, he/she needs a major reality check.

      Mike Flynn pointed out that Einstein fudged a cosmological constant, which he later had to remove, in order to make his theory work. Einstein admits that in the Index at the link above.

      There is no proof that the absolute time of Newtonian mechanics does not work. No one has tested relativity theory with an observer moving at the speed of light or whether rods shorten or clocks run slower or faster.

      Even in the equation used as the basis of transforming one frame of reference to another, it is clear that velocities in our world are not impacted by special relativity. Newton works!!!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      A must-read for anyone caught up in space-time/relativity dogma.

      http://www.focusing.org/critique_of_relativity.html

      This article is by a behavioral scientist, Eugene Gendlin, who is an accomplished researcher/author in psychology. Apparently, he is also deeply involved in mathematical modelling, hence his expertise in quantum theory and relativity.

      He refers to space-time as the comparisons of a human observer. In other words, the observer is following events with a clock and using the clock to track the changes.

      Einstein should have seen that, he missed it. So should Lorentz.

      There’s nothing wrong with that except when the observer presumes the time he is measuring affects the motion he is observing. There is no relationship between the two yet people often presume that, hence the notion of time dilation.

      Gendlin observes the relationship humans have built between distance and time. From that comes velocity and acceleration and it’s a short step to those prone to illusions to relate a change in distance to a change in time. Therefore, as velocities approach the speed of light, it is far too easy to suggest the change in distance is a change in time.

      The two are not related in reality. The distance covered refers to the instantaneous POSITION of a real body/particle and time only to the observations of an observer keeping tract of events. If the observer is not careful, the observer begins to think time is changing.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I was going to say earlier in relation to Newton’s first law that he corroborates time has no effect on a mass, only forces.

        “Newton’s First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force”.

        Time has no effect on a mass, only a force. Time is used by the human observer to track a mass in motion.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Space/Time and relativity are not just mindless dogma scientists came up with. There is actual empirical evidence to support it.

        You are not a scientist so I can’t hope for you to understand what science is about. You state you are an engineer and it shows you do not grasp scientific evidence.

        I posted a link for you to read through and you ignored it. It provides ample evidence of Relativity and time and mass effects based upon relative speed. You will certainly not be intelligent enough to understand any of the logic or rational explanation. I doubt you even look at it. You are really stuck in a primitive view of science. The worst part of your deluded opinions is you seem to think scientists make up all their theories. You can’t understand they are based upon empirical and experimental evidence as they have always been. You do not understand what empirical means. You reject evidence presented to you. Just ignore what does not fit your deluded and false world view.

        Again
        https://www.livescience.com/58245-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

        You won’t look and if you do you will not comprehend.

        Again, empirical evidence that GHG has significant radiant properties that is empirically determined. You reject this every time I link you to it and say your false and misleading notions about how 0.04% of CO2 could not have any effect. A mantra you believe since you repeat it often. It is wrong but you don’t change your mind ever. You are locked in a deluded world of made up physics. No one can reach that empty mind of yours. Endless amount of fantasy fake physics from you. Every post it seems.

        This is why you are clueless but you do not care. You are a layperson thinking he will take on the established science with stupid ideas and phony concepts. Let me know how it has been working for you.

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ab726dbc0924.png

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Space/Time and relativity are not just mindless dogma scientists came up with. There is actual empirical evidence to support it”.

          I did not say ‘mindless’, I implied irrelevant. There are far too many thought experiments circulating based on the dogma. Even Einstein admitted they could not prove most of relativity theory.

          I have no axe to grind with anyone studying physics, I do object to inane conclusions inferred such as time dilation. Don’t know if you read the article I posted by Gendlin but he hit the nail right on the head. Time is about observers imposing themselves on what they observe. He should know, he was a top psychologist in his day and understood the distinction between human observation and human illusion. Many scientists don’t understand that.

          As far as evidence, I presented a basic explanation of what relativity is about, observing an independent reference frame from another. You can do that with Newtonian physics, there’s nothing special going on.

          As I pointed out, Lorenz diddled the math to make light have the same velocity in each frame. That’s not possible, the notion that light emitted from an object sitting still travels at the same velocity as light from a fast object is bs.

          Doppler shifts prove that. The velocity of the source affects the wavelength of light which is the same as affecting its apparent speed. If light emitted at the same velocity everywhere, a Doppler shift would not happen.

          I have never claimed GHGs don’t radiate EM, I have only claimed the EM they emit cannot be absorbed by the surface since they are emitting from a colder region. I have also claimed Dalton’s law limits the heat contributed by GHGs to 1% max, all from WV. That varies from place to place on the Planet.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You and your made up garbage, it gets really old. You are NO SCIENTIST and you grabbing names of scientists and posting them does not make you smart (even though you think it is the way to win a debate).

            YOU: “I have never claimed GHGs dont radiate EM, I have only claimed the EM they emit cannot be absorbed by the surface since they are emitting from a colder region.”

            Statements like this is why you have no credibility. You just make up this stuff. No proof, no evidence, goes against all established science, makes no sense on the molecular level. Just crap you make up over and over.

            You still don’t get it. Time dilation is supported by evidence!
            Big Bang is supported by evidence. Science requires evidence. You are unable or unwilling to supply any. You think if you post a scientists name and attribute your delusional fantasies to that scientist it makes it true and valid.

            I gave you a link to show you time dilation in the real world.
            You ignore actual empirical data and go on with your bunk. You will never understand science, you will forever post your own deluded thoughts and pretend you know something.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”YOU: I have never claimed GHGs dont radiate EM, I have only claimed the EM they emit cannot be absorbed by the surface since they are emitting from a colder region.

            Statements like this is why you have no credibility. You just make up this stuff. No proof….”

            ************

            How about the explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics put forward by Clausius, the scientist who wrote the 2nd law?

            Heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.

            Not good enough for you? To bad, norman, that’s why you lack credibility.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Appealing to an Authority you do not understand does not make your case any stronger. You have yet to point out one place where it states that energy cannot be absorbed from a cold object to a hotter one. Clausius NEVER made this statement that you falsely (I think with bad intent) attribute to him.

            He claimed HEAT did not transfer from cold to hot and that is all. You make up the rest.

            The amount of heat transferred is directly dependent upon the temperature of the surroundings precisely because the energy from the colder surroundings IS absorbed by the hotter item. It is doing two things at the same time. The hot object is emitting to the surroundings and absorbing energy from the surroundings. The warmer the surroundings the more energy absorbed by the hotter object and hence less heat loss. It is really simple and basic physics and you can’t understand it no matter how many times it is clearly pointed out to you. You just go on with your false misleading ideas and think you discovered something no one else knows. The essence of a crackpot delusional person. You need to study physics, you know very little and what you think you know is wrong.

          • Svante says:

            Question for Gordon:
            Can a colder object influence the temperature of a warmer object?

  60. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    YOUR post about the Doppler effect proves just how little science you know and how little logical thought you possess. You cover your complete ignorance by pretending to be smart and assigning your stupid ideas to brilliant scientists and hoping to fool people on the blog that you are as smart as them by osmosis. You are not a very intelligent person and pretending to be one will not help achieve this. You need to read, study and work to learn things. Making up and twisting things that you can’t understand does not make you seem intelligent to anyone with any type of science background. You are only deluding yourself.

    YOU: “Doppler shifts prove that. The velocity of the source affects the wavelength of light which is the same as affecting its apparent speed. If light emitted at the same velocity everywhere, a Doppler shift would not happen.”

    The apparent speed of light is not changing at all. The Doppler effect exists because the light does not change speed.

    Here read this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

    An observer looking a a rapid moving object moving away will see a red shift. With the exact same object moving toward an observer they will see a blue shift. If you had a laser pulse both observers would see the light at exact same time. The light is moving at the same speed to both observers. One measured it is shifted red the other sees a blue shift in the frequency of the light.