Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:
This was the coolest September in the last 10 years in the global average.
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.21 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.25
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.18
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through September 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for September, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Feels like 1988 to me
You mean 1988 which had an annual average of +0.04 vs 2018 which is so far averaging +0.22 ?
No, he means feels like the Dodgers going to win the World Series…
Nearly 1/3 of a degree F in thirty years! Wow!!! Since the trend “so far” this year has been down, one might expect the full year to be even lower than +0.22 anomaly. What will it end up being? 1/4 Deg F warmer than 1988? A tenth of a degree F? I had better sell my beach front property!
Scott,
UAH shows 0.5 C of warming in 40 years. That’s 0.9 F.
RSS, calculating the same thing, shows about 50% more warming in the same time period.
That’s a frightening amount of warming! I moved 200 miles south for warmer weather. Perhaps I has better move back north to prevent over-heating.
0.5C of warming in 40 years. That’s a rate of 1.3C of warming per 100 years. Whoopee-do.
You should be using the kelvin scale when expressing percentage changes. The Celsius scale is a relative temperature scale
Phil says:
October 9, 2018 at 10:14 PM
You should be using the kelvin scale when expressing percentage changes. The Celsius scale is a relative temperature scale
___________________________________________
It makes no difference.
Change of 1.5 kelvin is also 50 percent higher than change of 1.0 kelvin.
Same as 1.5 celsius compared to 1.0 celsius.
Even translating to Fahrenheit makes no difference.
The “Greenhouse Effect” must be taking a break.
Oceans take up 92% of the warming. Has anyone got the global value, this is only the Pacific Ocean:
https://tinyurl.com/yb9o3s79
So if the surface temperature goes down the OHC goes up.
“Measured OHC was warmer than any other year since observations began in the early 1940s.”
https://tinyurl.com/ybsc2p3a
Significantly higher than my guesstimate.
des, the IPCC should have used your technique: Guess real low, then the actual will appear as “warming”.
Tricky.
There was no “guessing”. I was using the data from the old satellite that UAH no longer uses. It is sometimes high, sometimes low, but averages out about right.
bob…”There was no guessing. I was using the data from the old satellite that UAH no longer uses. It is sometimes high, sometimes low, but averages out about right”.
So, even though the abandoned sat and all the others tell us there has been no warming from CO2, as predicted by alarmists, you still support the alarmists?
Please explain HOW these data sets “tell us there has been no warming from CO2”.
It seems Gordon has no answer for that one.
bob…”Significantly higher than my guesstimate”.
Now I see your pathetic alarmist ploy. Guestimate 0.05C and push 0.15C as warming.
Don’t you have some sheep to tend?
So you pretended not to read my previous comment. That is YOUR pathetic denier ploy.
Gordon NEVER replies to comments that prove him wrong.
And there are a lot of them.
Bobdesbond was just mouthing off, David. He is pretty much always having a bad day, that one [anger management issues].
And I guess Gordon was not mouthing off?
Uh-oh…
Another monthly temperature update has arrived,
so it’s time to fill the comment section with hundreds of insightful
comments about climate and science!
I wrote a little shell script to strip out just who is posting and how often. Since Jan. 2018, there had been 19,248 comments when only counting those for the
monthly temperature updates (I used the second July article since it had more comments). That is about 70 per day on average, or about 1 every 3 minutes. Remember, I am not counting any comments from other articles posted by Dr. Roy.
I then sorted the comments by author and here is the “400 club” by search keyword
Appell 2142
Gordon 1560
—– 1248
Nate 1025
Flynn 991
barry 941
Norman 849
Snape 720
Prete 704
Huffm 703
Bart 566
ren 438
Svante 423
Pango 419
The third place author on the list can’t be named (more on that below) and achieved the total in only four months. This author also holds the unofficial high monthly total of 602 (from February). Counting the other articles from Feb., this author averaged more than 1 per hour 24/7 for Feb.
Out of 19,248 comments 3,702 (almost 20%) were from Appell and Gordon alone.
The top ten posters accounted for about half the total comments, and the top twenty posters over 75 percent.
This info is not perfect because at times people make a mistake with their own name, or change it slightly or completely. For example
==========================================================
—- Huffm Team Des Bond Bobdesbond
January 178 0 0 25 0 0
Feb 602 0 0 143 0 0
March 273 0 0 85 0 0
April 195 0 0 77 0 0
May 0 0 0 0 150 0
June 0 42 59 0 39 82
July 0 264 81 0 0 5
August 0 336 139 0 0 68
Sept 0 61 118 0 0 110
=======================================================
Hence what will be appear below is largely the product of a dozen or so obsessive compulsive individuals who meet here daily to say the same things to each other over and over.
Mark, thank you for this. I use to love this site. It has been destroyed by these listed individuals. Agenda driven fools who are too stubborn; these are not qualities which should be found in those looking for truth. One troll feeds the other(s), and suddenly it’s “comment Armageddon”.
Mark, Jake: if you don’t like the comments that appear here, write your own that you approve of and start a discussion in that direction.
Or, you could just please stop trolling.
You label anyone who presents science here as a “troll.”
How about less labeling, and more science from you ?
How about ANY science from you?
I tried science, but people called me a troll. What can you do?
Interesting analysis. Journalist Appell must be working on a LOT of news articles. Or, he has a lot of leisure time. Unless, of course, he’s paid….
Roy, I’m not paid by Peabody Energy for anything, or anybody else.
I learn a lot by commenting here — by thinking about presenting or defending ideas with science and reasoning. I guess that bothers some people here.
“I learn a lot by commenting here by thinking about presenting or defending ideas with science and reasoning”
Interesting way of learning David. Most of us learn by having an open mind that allows for things that we didn’t know to enter our heads.
Your method starts with the assumption that you already know more than others and you just need to be more creative at finding stuff to “defend” your settled science.
Mike, you didn’t understand my comment at all.
I’m not surprised about that.
Think about me whatever you want. Please.
We think you’re a troll David.
PS: Not everything a freelance writer does gets a byline, some projects take a long time, and sometimes people have health problems.
Fair enough.
You can always tell the paid ones, they offer nothing except trolling.
…. used to love …. and as always, thank you to Dr. Spencer for his time and effort.
Excellent. You are correct, they say the same thing over and over again to each other attempting to change hearts and minds but it’s a narcissistic activity to be sure. And they don’t care because each is smarter than the other.
I’d comment more but am well entertained the way things are. And I don’t have the belief anyone is attempting to change minds, just arguing for the fun of it. (Mostly)
Thank you to Dr. Spencer for keeping us up to date.
Good to know.
And you’re welcome for the entertainment.
Interesting, but this site would very quiet without those posters.
We do repeat but many of us believe in what we are saying. I see no harm in the give and take.
Salvatore,
It would be different, but not necessary quiet. I’m guessing many people don’t post on here because it is always tied up in the same old argument with the same old people. And there aren’t a lot of people that want to get in the middle of David A’s job of finding obscure research papers to back up his argument.
Michael, if you want different conservations, then start them.
Whining about existing comments has never gotten anyone anywhere.
So here’s a new one for one. I tried to guess this figure in advance using the daily channel 6 and monthly LT ones provided – sometimes that works exactly – arrived at 0.07 for this September, yes, realizing channel 6 is not LT exactly.
Thanks Mark. Very interesting.
It’s too bad there’s no way to compare content, especially ad homs, debate tricks, false accusations, etc.
Also, I think you have a math error:
“That is about 70 per day on average, or about 1 every 3 minutes.?
Someone here has to stand up for science and truth against all the misinformation and junk science written here by commenters.
lol
You need to sum G*e*r* and JD.
G*e*r was still here in April. JD didnt arrive til after that.
I think that is what he was getting at with the table that didn’t tab correctly (at least on my browser). The *, JD, and the Team should all be summed.
JW
How about summing La Pangolina and Bindidon?
No problem,
Pango+Bindidon=634 => #10
*+JDHuffman+Team=2348 => #1
So actually about 31.4% of the comments are from 3 individuals.
About 62% of the comments are from the top 10 individuals.
Svante, will “Mark Mannion” be your new name now, or will you go back and forth?
Mark, why are you combining my numbers with JD Huffman?
Can you do total word count for posters?
Kristian might move up the list.
Could you sum all the comments from the GHE Defense Team avatars?
GHE defense is by definition trolling isn’t it..
Well, Neighayt, I’ve been told the GHE needs no defense. So although I wouldn’t go so far as to say GHE defense is trolling (that’s just you putting words in my mouth because it’s what you do, you are unable to debate honestly), it does make you wonder why the majority of comments under a typical article here are from a team of people working various avatars specifically to defend it, who have been operating for years over various blogs using the exact same methods and debate tricks.<
It would take a very devout believer in conspiracies to think that the “team of people” supportive of GHE, are in any way organized.
BTW, pretty much all meteorologists and atmospheric scientists would have to be part of the organized “team of people” who believe in the GHE.
“exact same methods and debate tricks.”
You mean those evil tricks like quoting facts and laws of physics or citing publications, showing graphs, or using logic or worse, math?
Well they are probably are exactly the same methods used by science oriented people everywhere.
No, because I am not talking about “all meteorologists and atmospheric scientists”. N8 twists again, like he did last summer…
I am talking about the very small group of people, who all purport to have relevant training in those sciences, who devote an inordinate amount of their time in defending the GHE on blogs. You see the same people (with either the exact same handles, e.g. Tim Folkerts, or those with different names but who are recognizable from their commenting style, e.g. Trick/Ball4) popping up all over the Internet, and they’ve been doing it for years.
A conspiracy in plain sight, perhaps.
…and no Nayt, I mean tricks, like the ones you have demonstrated for everybody so far.
Ha!
Dr. Tim Folkerts, is a real person at Barton College, so unless he also has some impersonators…
I didn’t say he wasn’t real! Oh, you’re just doing your thing…<
Nate says:
He does seem to be the opposite of succinct, but only made it to tenth place here (Mike won the stupid contest again):
~/drroy/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c.org
Total: 1593 , new: 0 , latest: 2018-10-01 07:49:00
No. Words Avg Unique% Stupid Name
224 6513 29 22.5 2 David Appell
142 12426 87 17.7 3 barry
118 2594 21 27.3 0 Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
113 10798 95 18.3 59 Mike Flynn
110 2537 23 32.4 0 Bobdesbond
95 4492 47 22.2 0 Salvatore Del Prete
79 7319 92 20.3 3 Bindidon
74 11063 149 20.5 2 Gordon Robertson
61 1853 30 33.2 7 JDHuffman
56 5182 92 20.5 0 MrZ
54 8183 151 18.6 0 gbaikie
49 7076 144 16.9 10 Norman
46 2513 54 32.5 0 Nate
40 1876 46 38.2 2 Snape
34 2971 87 27.7 1 Kristian
31 2883 93 32.0 2 gallopingcamel
30 2415 80 28.4 0 phi
27 711 26 41.8 0 ren
26 2177 83 32.1 0 Bart
21 914 43 37.3 0 Richard M
19 2337 123 30.7 2 E. Swanson
15 510 34 52.9 0 Svante
13 352 27 44.6 0 Dan Pangburn
11 393 35 53.4 2 Eben
10 689 68 49.5 1 wert
“A conspiracy in plain sight, perhaps.”
Well, what you have so far is evidence of real people, trained in science, Tim, David, Swanson, Eli etc. who are posting at various sites in support of GHE and its enhancement.
I assume their motivations are similar to mine-they are trained in science, believe in it, and want to defend it.
Thats a conspiracy?
No Nait. I dont think its a conspiracy. You said that, not me. Lol.
“I dont think its a conspiracy.” Glad to hear it.
But you did say “a team of people working various avatars”.
What is ‘Unique %’?
“Unique %” is the number of unique words divided by the total.
It was meant as a measure of repetitiveness, but it doesn’t really work because it is too highly correlated to the number of words.
If anyone has both more words and more unique words it means higher lexical richness.
Trend analysis can tell you more, but not much.
I hope to add more quality measures in the future:
https://tinyurl.com/y9ytxymt
Semantic quality after that, I think you’re a winner there.
Hmmmm. Seems to me that with a finite lexicon, the more words the lower the unique word ratio. Loquacity would then be incondign to generating a high lexical richness score. (Just upping my score here)
Hmmm, I think you may have made the same point in a different way…
Yes, Nayt. Thats what I said.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Send a thief to catch a thief…
Interesting work Mark.
You could also compare the frequency of comments from certain individuals depending on whether the temperature has risen or fallen – i.e. certain regular warmunist commenters seem rather quiet compared to their usual rantings when faced with the latest data for some reason.
I don’t know any climate scientists or commentators who advocate for communism. How about naming 3 for us.
I think you just volunteered, DA!
All environmental activists are communists David, you should know that – take a look in the mirror.
Your eyesight is failing you, Mr Magoo.
BS, Magoo.
I don’t think you know what “communism” means.
Exactly! With the climate change ones, it’s more like fascism.
Magoo:
I am only stripping the raw html for the “says:” tag. I don’t actually read the entries.
Like Jake said above, years ago I enjoyed coming here, now it is a trolling wasteland. I check the monthly update out of curiosity, but that’s all.
Huffman:
I am not Svante nor anybody else. These are my first posts of the year. This is my last, so any further word from Mark Mannion is another sock puppet.
For anyone who knows bash:
This will get you most of the way to doing it yourself:
grep “>says: $MONTH.grep
sort $MONTH.grep | uniq -c | sort -gr | cat -n > $MONTH.out
echo -en $PERSON ‘\t’ ;grep -F $PERSON *.grep | wc -l
Wrap these in loops over months and people and you can get what you want. It isn’t pretty, but I have a job and hobbies.
Apologies, not all the special characters in the script show up, but if you know bash you can figure it out. Takes about 10 lines of bash, and probably fewer if you really know how to use the mighty grep.
I often quote people with the full name and “says:”, will that first grep count those?
Not a problem, you’re searching the html.
Svante answered as “Svante”, but should have answered as “Mark Mannion”.
Clowns are so funny!
And you should have answered as Ger*an.
You are too afraid to comment using your real name.
Desperate to get him banned, aren’t you?
It would have been “I” instead of “you” if I got the name wrong.
Well if you’re really not Svante, you could be his twin–attitude, agenda, techniques, and bad math.
A very good impersonation!
As usual, “one of” the trolls gave you a reply with no substance.
Mr Spencer should do something about this – but then, all the trolls are on his side.
Dr Spencer tried hard but has given up:
“Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
“So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
I remembered that statement, but I couldn’t remember where.
Very funny.
Thanks Svante (Mark).
And Bobdesbond has a total of 784, putting him between Snape and Norman, when taking the different sock puppets into account.
I’m not Mark Mannion but my program is also not pretty.
I only count per blog post but I do have a word count.
Caveat: the lexical analyzer may be a bit off the mark.
~/drroy/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen.org
Total: 1914 , new: 22 , latest: 2018-10-03 10:05:00
No. Words Avg Unique% Stupid Name
383 12995 33 17.8 4 David Appell
228 7132 31 18.0 1 Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
210 7013 33 20.2 3 JDHuffman
116 14114 121 15.2 45 Mike Flynn
112 19389 173 13.4 3 Gordon Robertson
94 15098 160 15.3 2 gbaikie
80 10608 132 13.1 14 Norman
79 6227 78 19.5 0 Ball4
74 4916 66 24.2 1 Nate
68 5585 82 26.7 0 gallopingcamel
57 2048 35 30.9 0 Svante
45 2017 44 32.6 1 Snape
38 1746 45 33.7 2 bobdroege
37 720 19 39.6 0 ren
29 3256 112 28.2 0 E. Swanson
29 780 26 48.2 0 DavidAppell
26 3804 146 20.7 2 Sheldon Walker
25 527 21 48.0 0 Bobdesbond
17 1777 104 26.5 1 ClimateChange4realz
12 285 23 66.0 0 DavidA
12 1137 94 47.2 2 La Pangolina
11 255 23 66.7 0 Robert W Turner
11 445 40 50.6 0 Bart
Cool. Ren wins, Gordon loses on being concise.
Yes, and Mike Flynn wins the “Stupid” category.
nate….below
Mark…”These are my first posts of the year. This is my last,…”
It would be interesting to see your take on science. I have a hunch you are another wannabee who feels distraught over your inability to discuss physics in-depth with us obsessive-compulsives, as you have labeled us. So, you took your ball and went home.
Mark…”Out of 19,248 comments 3,702 (almost 20%) were from Appell and Gordon alone”.
The amazing part is that you have this much time on your hands, to be applying statistical methods to opinions.
Wait a minute, that’s what the IPCC does.
MY totals are up there with Appell because I have to reply to his many inane alarmist rebuttals to the scientifically-based posts I offer. I don’t care what Appell posts I just want to inform the average reader of his posts, re how much pseudo-science he is spreading.
Appell fancies himself as a journalist but he only ever interviews alarmists, extreme alarmists at that. Talk about fake news.
The reason I don’t equal Appell in posts is that many of his posts are so pathetic it’s not worth the bother. Even a pre-schooler could see through his nonsense.
examples:
-heat is transferred both ways between the Earth and the Sun, causing the Sun to warm.
-heat travels through space from the Sun to warm us directly.
-I don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics even though I quoted it verbatim from Clausius, the scientist who wrote it.
-the Moon spins on its axis even though the same side is always pointing to the Earth.
Gordon, I’m right on all the four points you listed, and you’re wrong.
OMG Gordon. Not you too! You will have to take up your confusion with NASA, which states:
“The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
So only you and a couple of other nutcases here must see all sides of the moon when everyone else sees the same side. Wow! How special!
This topic has been discussed endlessly here. David is right on this one.
skeptic….”The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
That nonsense must have come from NASA GISS, not the real NASA.
The Moon is tidally locked to the earth, meaning it does not turn on it’s axis via natural angular momentum. It appears to turn on an axis relative to an observer viewing the Earth-Moon system from a different perspective outside the system.
Closer observation reveals clearly that the Moon is not rotating around an internal axis.
Being tidally-locked is the same thing as having a rigid member running from the Earth’s surface and connected to the Moon. There would have to be a track on which the member could run on the surface while allowing the Earth to turn underneath. The rigid member would not allow the Moon to rotate.
In that manner, the Moon is tidally-locked, preventing it from turning, and the same face will always face the Earth. It is absurd to think that a celestial body like the Moon would be captured in orbit while having an exact rotational period matching one revolution around the Earth.
Apply vectors for cripes sake. Have one vector from the Moon centre pointed to Earth and another perpendicular vector at right angles. How can that vector system rotate around an axis on the Moon while one member is pointed at the Earth?
From an external perspective, the vector system will rotate but not around the Moon’s axis.
I used an example in the past of a person sitting on a park bench watching a woman swinging her child in circles by his/her arms while the observer observes. From the observer’s POV, the child is rotating. At one point the child’s head is toward the observer then 180 degrees later the feet are facing the observer.
However, the child is not rotating about the child’s centre of gravity. Neither is the Moon.
Gordon,
You are totally confused. No, it was not NASA GISS that I obtained the quote from. It was NASA:
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
Some people just don’t have ability to understand this simple concept. You are one of them.
Your argument is not with me, but with NASA and just about every science organization on the planet. NASA knows crap about climate change, but they are experts in the field of astrophysics.
SGW, you are really having trouble with this.
Two motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle. The wagon, from outside the circle, would appear to be rotating on its own axis. But, in reality, it is just being pulled in an orbital path, ONE motion. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Study the two motions, and try to cleanse your mind that everything you see from “institutionalized pseudoscience” is reality.
Translation defined:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration [http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
“Motion of a rigid body in such a way that any line which is imagined rigidly attached to the body remains parallel to its original direction.
Draw a line through two points on your wagon. The line does not remain parallel throughout its motion. That is not pure translational motion. Therefore, per the strict definitions of kinematic motion, the object’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path while the object rotates about its center of mass.
You just don’t have the background to understand this stuff. Don’t worry, we got you covered.
There are only two options when describing the general motion of a rigid body. It’s either exhibiting pure translation, or it exhibits a translation plus a rotation about its center of mass. These definitions have been established for almost 200 years.
SGW, you don’t understand the definition. For the lines they are referring to, use the sides of the wagon. As you pull the wagon, the sides remain parallel to the line of motion. It is “translational” motion.
Like Norman, and several others, you appear to have a learning disability. But you can hurl insults quite readily. I wonder if there’s a connection….
JDHuffman
Quit whining about people insulting you. You insult people in many of your posts. You use very offensive language. Call people clowns etc. If you post clean good posts you will find insults decline. Your own insulting taunting posts are why people will respond to you in kind. Many times (when you were g.e.r.a.n) my initial attempt with you was to stick to reason and logical posts. You would then twist, distort and insult and then pretend as if you are innocent and people go out of their way to attack you with insults. Time to get over yourself and your phony nature. Stop insulting and you will find others will not insult you back. Support your declarations or don’t tell anyone ever that they don’t know physics. Many times posters have asked you to support your wild and crazy ideas and you go off on tangents and distractions. You do this very often, it is a pattern to your posting. When someone asks you a direct question you don’t answer and go off on some unrelated point.
JD,
No. You don’t understand.
The line have to “remain parallel to its original position” throughout its motion to experience pure translational motion.
Look at page one of the following:
http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf
Translational motion requires the orientation of the object to not change during the motion. Your wagon’s orientation is constantly changing.
Every university kinematic reference I have given you is telling you the same thing. Your toy wagon or car experiences a translation of its center of mass + rotation about its center of mass.
You are way out of your league here. You don’t have the goods to understand this stuff.
Yes the wagon is changing direction, because it is moving in a circular motion. At each incremental position, the motion is translational. The next incremental portion, the motion is still translational, but in a different direction. It is exactly the motion of the Moon about the Earth.
Let’s try one more example before giving up.
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis”. It is securely attached to the yardstick.
If you can weasel your way out of this, your get the “Pseudoscience Clown” award of the day!
Norman, you need to seek counseling.
JD,
Give it up. You don’t get it.
At each incremental position, your line through the wagon is pointing in a different direction. To be translational motion, the line has to remain parallel throughout its movement. The object CANNOT change its orientation! How many references must I give? How many pictures before you understand? If your wagon starts out facing east, it must remain facing east throughout its orbit to be considered translational motion. Translational motion just changes the position of the object without changing its orientation. Get it through your thick skull!
SGW, you can not understand orbital motion. You refused the clear explanation in the MIT example problem. You refuse the simple explanation using the tennis ball on the yardstick.
I can’t teach physics to a rock. Enjoy your self-delusion.
So many beat-downs that Just Dumb resorts to his usual, “Oh look, a squirrel!”, response. Quite sad. But hilarious too.
Mark…”Hence what will be appear below is largely the product of a dozen or so obsessive compulsive individuals….”
Nothing like a study performed by a biased researcher. My g/f would laugh hysterically if you told her I was obsessive-compulsive. She is having trouble trying to get me to be ambitious and to stop taking it so easy in life.
She would agree that I spend more time on blog’s like Roy’s than she’d like.
If science is an obsession, then I guess I’m obsessed. However, I’d consider someone who tracks posts on blogs as being far more guilty of such obsession.
Thanks, Mark, for this humorous quantification of insanity.
Dr. Spencer, can you explain why your LT v6 shows a cooling trend over the Arctic for the MSU data, compared to that from the other research groups?
See my 2017 AGU presentation and my previous paper for background.
The Arctic has a warming trend greater than any other region on Earth, so I have no idea what you are referring to.
Dr. Spencer, Yes, the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the Earth. That’s not my question.
If you will look at my paper figures 6a-6c, and the previous JTECH paper, you will see that your data, after filtering, exhibits a cooling trend from 1980 until about 2004, as compared to the other two data sets in my analysis. Your v6 data also exhibits a similar cooling trend versus your previous v5.6 series, as shown in my figure 6c. This period would appear to correspond to your processing of the MSU data, which, as I understand your paper, uses a somewhat different technique than that for the later AMSU data. As a result of these differences, your analysis over the Arctic produces a lower warming trend compared with that from RSS and NOAA STAR.
I just plotted up our data and the only period you might be able to say there was a very slight cooling trend was 1979-1993/94, and that looks like it was because of Pinatubo cooling 1992-94, which is the endpoint of that period. Otherwise, I see warming.
I suspect the current difference is because only we use the new method of getting a lower tropospheric temperature. NOAA STAR uses some of the RSS adjustments in their processing of LT (the old way), so those 2 datasets are not independent. Specifically, diurnal drift in the LT is especially problematic in the Arctic when you compute LT in the old way (a strongly weighted difference [4* – 3*] between view angles) because a single instrument scan spans many local times. Then, these drift as the satellite orbit drifts through the diurnal cycle.
This is one of the reasons why we switched to the Version 6 way of computing LT, which reduces errors in the diurnal drift adjustment. The diurnal drift adjustments were not well behaved, especially around 60-70 deg. N, as I recall.
Dr. Spencer, Of course, all three sets of data show both the cooling after Mt. Pinatubo and the warm spikes with the 1996 and 2016 El Ninos. By taking the difference between the individual sets, one can visualize the effects of different processing. The cooling trend I refer to is the negative slope in my figures 6a and 6b, not the trend over some period of the individual series. Your data is warmest at the beginning, compared to each of the other series, thus, your time series presents less warming overall then either alternative.
From memory, without going back to read the background reports again, RSS and NOAA STAR use different approaches to harmonize the data between each satellite. Without a more detailed analysis, I suggest that the diurnal adjustments would show up as more broken differences, yet my figure 6a and 6b indicate a nearly monotonic decline vs UAH v6 between 1980 and about 2004. And, my figure 6d shows shows the “NOAA 9” negative blip at 1985 in your earlier v5.6, which appears to be reduced in your v6 results.
While we are at it, I’ve another question. In earlier work, I think you all removed those scans which were anomalously cold resulting from the presence of precipitable ice (hydrometeors) within intense storms. Are you still doing this processing step with your UAH v6?
swannie…”Dr. Spencer, Of course, all three sets of data show both the cooling after Mt. Pinatubo and the warm spikes with the 1996 and 2016 El Ninos”.
Give it up swannie, Roy has explained it in far more detail than he normally allows in responses to amateur number crunchers. The man is an expert.
Besides, your reputation as a scientific researcher took a major hit when you refuted the 2nd law based on an experiment performed on your kitchen stove. You demonstrated an abject ignorance of heat dissipation and the effect a blockage of convection has in causing a heated source to warm.
Even when you turned to an evacuated enclosure, you drew an erroneous conclusion that back-radiation from a cooler object was warming a hotter object. It is plain that the warming of the heat source was due to lifting a cooler plate directly in front of the radiating heat source plate hence blocking its ability to cool via radiation.
Now you are examining UAH data and arguing with the professional who is an expert on the matter.
Gordon Robertson
I have asked you a couple of times now. I know you want to ignore me.
YOU: “It is plain that the warming of the heat source was due to lifting a cooler plate directly in front of the radiating heat source plate hence blocking its ability to cool via radiation.”
How does the green plate block the ability of the blue plate to cool via radiation. You have yet to propose a mechanism for you declaration. There is no physics that supports your idea and it is easily proven erroneous by actual experimentation (which you will never perform as E. Swanson has done).
If you ever quit being a lazy poster and get out and do some real science work you can prove yourself wrong easily.
Don’t alter the position of the green plate that you claim blocks the ability of the blue plate to cool by radiation. Just do tests by changing the green plate temperature. It will prove E. Swanson is right and you are terribly confused about radiant energy and wrong. You will find as you change the temperature of the green plate, if you increase its temperature the blue plate temperature goes up and if you decrease it the blue plate temperature goes down.
The reason is obvious and simple but your biased mind will not accept the most obvious explanation for what you will see. The most obvious explanation is the green plate is radiating energy to the blue plate. The higher the green plate temperature the more energy it sends to the blue plated causing the temperature of the blue plate to go up. You can even calculate how much energy the green plate is sending to the blue plate by measuring the temperature increase and if you know the surface area and the material makeup of your plates you can get a good calculation for the actual amount of radiant energy the blue plate is absorbing from the green plate. Do the test and you will see you are in error. You won’t do the experiment because it will destroy the false reality you live in.
Gordo asserts, once again:
As usual, Gordo has nothing to offer from his deviant version of physics with which to support this assertion. He can’t explain how his so-called “blocking” actually works, so he just repeats his assertion over and over, as if doing so makes it true, a classic propaganda technique.
Of course, Gordo isn’t interested in science, else he would have read my peer reviewed paper in JTECH, which references my earlier analysis of Spencer & Christy’s work 15 years ago. And, of course, he doesn’t want to read other reports, such as Santer et al. (2016), which presents an analysis similar to my paper.
Norman, I edited out all of the personal attacks, false accusations, and irrelevant nonsense. All that was left of your long rambling comment was your question, where you omitted the question mark:
“How does the green plate block the ability of the blue plate to cool via radiation.”
To see the folly of your ways, you and ES should start with the plates in full contact. After equilibrium is reached, slightly move the green plate away. You will see the blue plate does not have a temperature increase.
Of course, the ones conducting the experiment have to know what they are doing.
HuffingMan wrote:
Of course, if HuffingMan had any understanding of heat transfer, it would have been obvious that my Green Plate Demo did that exact same process. Having both plates in contact would have the same result as a Blue plate which was twice as thick, as there would only be two radiating surfaces in the combination. Separating said plates would produce two plates each of which providing two radiating surfaces. The results would be the same as in my demo, except that the Green plate would then cool as the Blue plate warmed in order to achieve a new steady state.
Sorry ES, but you can’t substitute imagination for reality.
Unless you want to remain a clown.
HuffingMan, Science is about experimental results, not your unsubstantiated claims of mythological prescience. You are the challenger, so it’s up to you to provide the proof, not me. If you want to verify your claims, you should build your own test rig, run it, then provide the full information so obtained for all to critique.
ES admits: “Science is about experimental results…”
Exactly ES. So when you show your results, including all temps before/after and fluxes before/after, I will be happy to indicate where you’re wrong, if you still believe you can violate 2LoT.
HuffingMan again proves that he isn’t willing to doing real work. You are the one claiming I’m wrong, so you are the one who must prove your claim, not me. Put up or shut up, as they say.
“when you refuted the 2nd law based on an experiment..”
The experiment worked just fine, and agreed with predictions of radiative heat transfer physics.
When did he refute 2LOT? I don’t recall that.
ES, “hand-waving” is NOT acceptable as evidence. But, you’re probably used to pseudoscience, where anything goes.
JDHuffman
You need to prove your false misleading physics. E. Swanson knows you are complete phony (and lazy as well).
You make the false claim: “To see the folly of your ways, you and ES should start with the plates in full contact. After equilibrium is reached, slightly move the green plate away. You will see the blue plate does not have a temperature increase.”
You are completely wrong. The green plate will decrease temperature once disconnected and the blue plate will increase in temperature. The setup he has is already proving this. The steady state temperature reached is the result of the green plate away from the blue plate. Blue plate hotter than before. Your made up physics gets real old. Have you figured out yet that you are clueless about Wien’s Law or are you still only concerned with the spelling and not the content? Surface distractions.
Norman, I edited out all the false accusations, ad homonyms, and misrepresentations.
Here’s what was left: “”
(Where do I send the bill?)
JDHuffman
You like to distract. The fact remains. You gab and make up stuff. You are too afraid to actually prove that you don’t know what you are talking about. You could set up your two plate test in a vacuum similar to what E. Swanson did. You won’t do it so you play around like a drunk fool with nonsense distraction comments avoiding the reality that everyone on this blog knows about you. YOU ARE A PHONY!
If you do the experiment you will prove you were wrong. So it is easy for you to avoid doing the experiment and continue to gab.
JDHuffman
So will you admit you are a lazy phony that doesn’t have a clue?
Why not follow E. Swanson advice? Or will you just ignore him and pretend you are intelligent.
E. Swanson: “HuffingMan again proves that he isnt willing to doing real work. You are the one claiming Im wrong, so you are the one who must prove your claim, not me. Put up or shut up, as they say.”
I totally agree, “PUT UP OR SHUT UP!”
You and lazy Gordon Robertson both need to follow this advice. Neither of you will attempt any actual science experiment but you will keep posting your stupid nonsense daily. Why do you do this?
Here’s what was left: “”
JDHuffman
A post you can’t edit. Why not do your own experiment?
In a vacuum have two plates in contact with each other. Have a heat lamp adding energy to one plate but not the other. Move the non-heated plate a little away from the heated plate. Results?
Dang Norman, a mature, responsible comment! See, that wasn’t hard was it?
I don’t have to do an experiment I already know the results for. If done perfectly, with no losses, the results would look like this:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
Please do the experiment yourself. You will find your graphic you linked is not correct. Until you perform the required testing you will not believe any results from others.
Norman, you and ES don’t have any “results”. You just believe you do. All you have are your beliefs. It’s your “religion”. That’s why you get so emotional when people tell you the “experiment” is wrong.
If you two wanted to behave scientifically, you would admit you do not have any results. You do not have flux values. ES was able to arrange the experiment to get the temps he wanted, and then you both ASSUME the temperatures are due to the impossible heating of the blue plate by the green plate. That’s NOT science!
Here’s your big problem. In the perfect scenario, with both plates in full contact, hopefully you will agree the blue side is emitting 200 Watts/m^2, as is the green side, and both are at 244 K.
Now, you are believing that slightly separating the plates will force the blue to a higher temperature (262 K). But the only way that could happen is if the green plate were no longer a black body. Now it was some kind of half insulator/half emitter. You have changed the problem to fit your religion!
If the green plate remains a black body, then this is the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
HuffingMan, Your tortured graphic ignores the basics of IR EM radiation. The radiation from the blue plate must be the same from each side, since the areas of each side are the same. Your graphic shows 200 w/m^2 going toward the left, while 200 + 200 = 400 w/m^2 going toward the right, which is physically impossible. This is so obviously incorrect that your acceptance of it just proves, yet again, that you don’t know what you are talking about. Troll on.
Along with your other deficiencies, ES, you cannot handle arithmetic.
Left side of blue plate >>> +400 – 200 = +200
Right side of blue plate >>> +200 -200 +200 = +200
Both sides are emitting 200 Watts/m^2
After you learn arithmetic, learn some physics.
JD, there is a problem with your “correct diagram”
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
The blue plate is receiving 600 watts/meter^2 and emitting 600 watts/meter^2, so that’s good, energy in equals energy out.
And the green plate is receiving 400 watts/meter^2 and emitting 400 watts/meter^2, so that’s also good, energy in equals energy out.
But and here’s the big BUTT
If they are receiving different amounts of energy, they can’t be at the same temperature, the blue plate needs to be at a higher temperature since it is receiving more energy.
We should replace the Blue plate with a Blue rock and the Green Plate with a Green Tree.
bob, the arrows are color-coded. Blue arrows are emitted by blue plate. Green arrows are emitted by green plate.
I’ve already explained the arithmetic to ES, but I’ll go another route, to make it even clearer.
Blue plate absorbs 400 Watts’/m^2 (red arrow). Blue plate emits 200 from each side (blue arrows). Blue plate reflects green arrow because net energy flow (200) is from blue to green.
Green plate absorbs 200 (blue arrow), and emits 200 in both directions. But since blue plate reflects back, all energy must be emitted from right side of green plate. That’s why it has the same temperature as the blue plate.
System receives 400 and emits 400. 1LoT and 2LoT satisfied.
Then you are not doing the same experiment as Eli
The plates are blackbodies, and do not reflect.
Think again young wabikimosabisan
“..2LoT satisfied.”
Nonsense. “Blue plate reflects green arrow” is not a real process as that process does not increase universe entropy thus 2LOT is NOT satisfied in JD’s humorous cartoon. This is why there are no black bodies.
Curiously, though, black body radiation exists. Could be black bodies are just invisible like the nonsense process JD describes. Perhaps JD’s diagram shows the existence of black bodies because JD’s green plate arrow being reflected by JD’s blue plate means JD’s humorous version green plate feels something’s there (the background SW radiation has disappeared) but can’t quite observe JD’s blue plate.
Too, could be JD’s blue plate has a version of the Romulan cloaking device engaged as JD has discovered their physics.
bob, it’s the same as Eli’s, but here, the solution is correct.
In the incorrect solution, the green plate somehow converts from a black body to a combination insulator/reflector/absorber???
“but here, the solution is correct.”
Funny, more please. If JD’s solution really is correct, JD will have to find a test where a blue plate can be made purely reflecting & doesn’t even scatter light. Not going to happen JD, keep up the entertainment making yourself look silly, you know like Bozo who also had a long career doing so.
JD,
As a former mechanic at a Nuclear Power Station, I am familiar with reflective insulation, which would be like stacking a dozen or more plates and the end result is something you could put your hand on and four inches away is something at a temperature of 500 F.
If you are right, such a thing would not be possible.
Sorry, practical experience trumps your pseudo-scientific ramblings.
I also wanted to say that what you are doing with the plate experiment is the same thing Captain Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru test.
bob, you got confused about black bodies. I tried to explain that the incorrect version had a black body plate transforming into some kind of nonsensical reflector/absorber.
Then you rambled off trying to burn your hand on 500F surfaces?
Come back when you can make some sense.
HuffingMan continues to prove he has no clue about IR EM radiation. The energy radiated by a body is a function of the temperature to the fourth power, not the quantity of energy flowing in via absorp_tion. Your mythological physics which assumes all one needs to do is balance the energy flows on each side doesn’t work. Learn some real world physics.
ES, your lame attempts to discredit reality are easy “ducks” to shoot down. I will start counting. The first was when you were unable to do the arithmetic. This is now #2.
At equilibrium, the energy absorbed by a plate is the energy emitted. So, if you know the emission, you can calculate the temperature. So yes, the energy balance must indeed be considered.
Duck #1: ES Learns Arithmetic.
Duck #2: ES Learns how temperatures are determined.
I’ll be waiting for Duck #3. I hope it’s as funny as the first two.
Nope JD AKA Captain Kirk of the Kobayashi Maru, you are the one who changed a black-body problem into a reflecting problem.
You changed the conditions of the thought experiment and thus got the wrong answer.
It’s common sense, if you add more layers or more plates the temperature at the last plate or layer farthest from a heat source goes down, it doesn’t stay at the same temperature as it shows in your diagram.
You say learn some real science, not pseudo-science, but whom does one learn science from?
In the US anyway, you get it from PhDs, say thermodynamics, a branch of physics or chemistry.
So it would seem proper to learn thermodynamics from, say to describle a small set of instructors, someone who has a PhD in Physics who is department chair in the Chemistry Department of a liberal arts college.
Anybunny can guess who I am talking about?
Hint, math, physics and chemistry are liberal arts.
No bob, I didn’t change the conditions of the thought experiment. I just didn’t allow 2LoT to be violated. It is not a legitimate experiment if 2LoT is violated.
In the thought experiment, there are no losses. So you could add as many plates as you wanted. They would all be at the same temperature.
Now, try some more of your…..
“In the thought experiment, there are no losses.”
Which is a violation of 2LOT for a real process. Very easy to understand JD doesn’t know what JD is writing about. JD will not perform an experiment demonstrating JD’s solution as JD’s cartoon is impossible.
Now it’s my turn to invoke Feynman, if your theory doesn’t agree with the data, your theory is wrong.
Reflective insulation is merely a number of layers of plates between a heat source (500 degree water pipe under pressure) and my hand.
The surface of the reflective insulation is at room temperature, cool enough to touch, and the inside is at 500 F, instant burns.
Another example from my work history, super conducting magnets that needed to be cooled with liquid helium for the inner part, and with liquid nitrogen for the outer part. They were insulated with successive layers of aluminum foil. 20 layers for the helium core and 40 layers for the outer part.
These things would not have worked if the thermodynamic properties were in accordance with your lively imagination.
Just give it up.
Study a modern thermodynamics text.
If you have one at hand, post the title and author, I can obtain the same and we can continue to discuss.
bob, you seem to be rambling. Did you you have a specific point?
yeah, JD, I had a point
You are using the pseudoscience version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Try using the real world one.
Find the nearest Thermodynamics Professor and ask him.
bob, where do you believe I have anything wrong about thermodynamics?
Or are you just making another false accusation?
(I will ignore any irresponsible rambling.)
JD, I don’t believe you are wrong, I know you are wrong about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Where did you study thermodynamics?
I studied Thermodynamics at the University of Illinois which has a top 10 in the US rated Chemistry Department.
Not some crackerjack institution.
No credentials means no cred.
Your chart is wrong.
The blue plate receives more energy than the green plate hence must be at a higher temperature.
HuffingMan’s cartoon revision of Eli’s Green Plate Effect presentation is so obviously wrong that HuffingMan has tried in vain to change the subject, switching to bluster and character assignation of those who point out his errors. Of course, HuffingMan isn’t interested in science, else he would respond to his critics’ refutation of his denialist “physics”. His latest effort is to hark back to the science of 1850 by incorrectly referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as if nothing has been learned since.
HuffingMan is just another troll spreading FUD to discredit the scientific underpinning of the problem of Global Warming.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
bob, thanks for your response. It’s easier to help if I know where you are confused.
The blue plate receives 400, but emits 200 from 2 sides, The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side. So, before equilibrium, you are correct. The blue plate would be at a higher temperature. The green plate would be gaining. At equilibrium, both would have the same temperature.
Again, an easy way to understand is to consider both plates exactly in full contact. They would have the same temperature. In our “perfect” scenario, moving them slightly apart would not change temperatures (no losses).
(Since you asked, my classroom thermo was in physics and engineering. But, I added to my knowledge significantly in the “school of hard knocks”.)
ES is moving into full clown status.
His science fails him, so he resorts to misrepresentations and false accusations.
It’s a recurring strategy among clowns.
ES, please accept my apology.
I forgot to count your last duck!
Duck #1: ES Learns Arithmetic.
Duck #2: ES Learns how temperatures are determined.
Duck #3: ES practices bluster.
I’ll try not to let it happen again.
JD, me I had plenty of time wearing a hardhat.
But let me explain where you are going wrong.
It will be easy to explain.
“The blue plate receives 400, but emits 200 from 2 sides, The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side. So, before equilibrium, you are correct. The blue plate would be at a higher temperature. The green plate would be gaining. At equilibrium, both would have the same temperature.”
Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.
Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.
The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.
To find the temperatures and heat flows at equilibrium requires as shown in the Rabbet patch that you solve a system of simultaneous equations. looks like you haven’t done that. You have homework.
“Again, an easy way to understand is to consider both plates exactly in full contact. They would have the same temperature. In our “perfect” scenario, moving them slightly apart would not change temperatures (no losses).”
See Captain Kirk of the Kobyashu Maru, this is where you are changing the conditions of the problem, the plates are not in contact.
Finally a last thought, it’s 40 below outside, and according to your diagram it makes no difference if you go outside in your negligee or dressed in several layers, long underwear, wool pants and shirt and finally a parka.
So what are you wearing?
bob, before I take the time to answer all of your comment, let’s see how you respond to just the first item.
bob says: “Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.”
bob, the graphic is very clear, and I have even explained it to you. There is NO evidence that you are trying to understand. It appears you are trying NOT to understand.
The graphic clearly indicates the green plate is emitting from BOTH sides. But, no energy can move to the blue plate (2LoT). The only way the green plate can get rid of the 200 Watts/m^2 incoming is to radiate from its right side. And the only way it can radiate 200 Watts/m^2 is to have a temperature of 242 K.
Now, before continuing with the rest of your comment, let’s see if you can respond in a manner that indicates you are sincerely trying to understand, rather than just trying to avoid reality.
Just stick to this one item, until it is resolved.
That the rub, you incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law, which does not prohibit the transfer of heat energy from a cold body to a hot body.
To be clear the transfer of heat from the green plate (colder to hotter) to the blue plate is allowed because there is a simultaneous transfer of heat from the blue plate to the green plate (hotter to colder)
Those who teach thermodynamics, like the Rabett know this is true.
Where did you study physics?
I took 3 semesters of physics for physics majors at the University of Illinois.
As well as two semesters of physical chemistry which covers thermodynamics and the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Did you take physics from an accredited college institution.
Names please
Try looking up the 2nd law again.
“no energy can move to the blue plate (2LoT)”
Whoops, no 2LOT violation as according to the cartoon the plates are the same temperature. They simply exchange photon energy of all frequencies. Even if they were different temperatures, they would still exchange photons as that process creates entropy and has been proven by experiment. The cartoon green arrow process produces no entropy so cannot be real (2LOT).
“rather than just trying to avoid reality.”
JD is the commenter avoiding reality as JD produces no test confirmation of JD’s cartoon. And will not ever do so as clearly the cartoon is not in compliance with 2LOT; the cartoon is a nice perpetual motion machine though with “no losses” due “perfect” green arrow reflection not of this world. As bob states, JD should run over to the Rabbet patch and learn some 2LOT physics.
“Just stick to this one item, until it is resolved.”
Experiment has already resolved this item. JD has produced no experiment just jawboning, handwaving, bluster – call it what you will.
bob, as I mentioned, only the first item, until it is resolved. Otherwise it just looks like you’re throwing out anything you can conjure up to see if it “sticks”.
Again, the first item is: “Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.”
Do you now understand that the green plate is indeed emitting from BOTH sides?
If so, we can move on to the next item.
bob 1:52pm already agreed to that JD: “so (the green plate) emits from both sides”
Trick, remember how you used to write comments of some value, all those years ago? Shame how you have utterly debased yourself on this blog over the last few years.
Yes, JD, the green plate emits from both sides and the blue plate emits from both sides.
To be clear, when I said the green plate only effectively emits from one side I was quoting you JD.
“The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side.”
See these little things “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
They mean what is inside them is someone else’s words
bob has not reported in. As is typical, reality is so hard on clowns that they cannot handle the facts.
If he does return, he will need a note from his mommy….
Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but notice his attempt to present his “credentials”, rather than substance:
“I took 3 semesters of physics for physics majors at the University of Illinois.
As well as two semesters of physical chemistry which covers thermodynamics and the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”
For someone that claims to have studied physics and thermodynamics, bob sure has a hard time understanding the simple graphic! But, especially funny was “…the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”
bob was apparently indoctrinated with the GHE pseudoscience at an early age. No wonder he can’t understand the relevant physics!
Well, bob did show up after all!
Welcome back bob, and thanks for acknowledging that there are emissions from both sides of the green plate.
Continuing on with item2:
There are really two related items here, both easily resolved. Let’s call them 2a and 2b.
2a: “Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.”
No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. That’s indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.
2b: “The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.”
No, the graphic shows conditions at equilibrium. And, as explained in 2a, blue does not receive any energy from green.
Please indicate your understanding of 2a and 2b, and we can move to the next item.
bob, I forgot to mention that I will be away from the internet until Sunday evening.
Just do you won’t believe I have deserted you….
“Do you believe in magic in a young girl’s heart
How the music can free her, whenever it starts”
There, another musical quote, which I will explain.
“No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
This is where you are changing the thought experiment, reflection is not allowed, it’s a three black-body experiment.
Here’s where the magic happens, lets envision a slightly different set of conditions. Say we have electric heater inside the green plate and are able to change the temperature of the green plate. We increase the temperature of the green plate until it is higher than the blue plate, which changes the Blue plate from a reflector to a black-body.
That’s magic!
When you say the Blue plate can’t receive energy from the Green plate due to 2nd law, there are other physical laws that have to be violated to get that effect, one is that a photon can only carry 3 pieces of information, it’s energy(1 piece) and it’s direction (2 pieces), it does not carry any information related to the temperature of it’s source.
Or an effect that has never been observed, so you believe that changing the temperature of one item can change the emissivity of another object.
ME: 2b: The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.
YOU: No, the graphic shows conditions at equilibrium. And, as explained in 2a, blue does not receive any energy from green.
YOU: Please indicate your understanding of 2a and 2b, and we can move to the next item.
My understanding is that I have 2a correct, the blue plate does receive energy from the green plate.
As for 2b, you have to calculate the temperatures at equilibrium, which you have not done. Get cracking on your homework.
When you are sleeping, are you warmer with one blanket or with two blankets?
I have a bet with my sister who’s a little bit dumb, that all of this will go over your head and you will understand none of it.
JD, when you get back read this
https://web.stanford.edu/~ajlucas/143aSection3SOLN.pdf
Problem 3
“No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
This is just too funny to pass by.
We discussed this many rotating moons ago. JD thinks a black body can transform into a mirror, just with a little change in temperature.
I asked him if he ever saw his reflection in a piece of charcoal. He never answers.
He went on to argue that BB are not real, so I guess they can behave magically as he wishes them to.
Good luck in getting a reality-based answer from him, Bobdroege!
bob, it looks like we’re still stuck on 2a and 2b. Let’s consider only 2a, until we get it resolved.
bob said: “Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.”
JD said: “No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. That’s indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
bob said: “My understanding is that I have 2a correct, the blue plate does receive energy from the green plate.”
No bob, that is incorrect. You may be referring to the incorrect graphic. The correct graphic clearly indicates the green plant is NOT transferring any energy to the blue plate.
Here’s the correct graphic, again.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
You may want to believe the correct graphic is wrong, but you have to be able to demonstrate you even understand it. Do you clearly understand that the blue plate is NOT receiving any energy from the green plate, as shown in the correct graphic?
No JD, the problem is not that I don’t understand your diagram, the problem is that you are not using real physics or real thermodynamics or the real 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The blue plate can’t tell what the temperature of the source of the radiation that is hitting it is, so it can not decide to reflect one source and absorb another.
Since it is a black-body thought experiment, the rules are that each plate absorbs all the radiation that hits it. So the blue plate absorbs the red arrow as well as the green arrow for a total of 600 W/m^2, which is more than the green plate gets, so it must be at a higher temperature, period *********** paragraph.
You can’t change the conditions of the thought experiment and claim you have evaluated the conditions and calculated the correct solution.
It’s a common real world application, if you are cold you add blankets, and the addition of colder blankets does indeed raise the temperature of the body beneath the blanket.
bob, you did pretty good with the first item, but you have bogged down since. You seem more interested in throwing out irrelevant and erroneous nonsense than having a serious discussion. You seemed proud of your technical education, but it was clearly incomplete, and often tainted. I’m willing to help you, but not if you have a closed mind. I’ve been through this too many times.
For example, you keep throwing out “blankets”. Your attempted point is that the green plate is a “blanket”. So, you are changing the green plate into an insulator! And, you do this while accusing me of changing the properties of the blue plate. But, I’m only following 2LoT. I’m not changing the blue plate. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
So, we can just “agree to disagree”, if you like. I’m willing to help, but you have to have an open mind.
JD, in order to have further discussions, you need to read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics because you are just flat out wrong.
This is not an accurate 2nd law
Heat can never transfer from cold to hot.
Be my guest and remain ignorant.
Insinuations with incoherent rambling–like I haven’t seen that before….
JD, your lack of understanding doesn’t make something incoherent.
You just make yourself look ignorant.
You can say that again.
Svante reveals he has been lurking here. He’s been following the discussion. Of course, he cannot refute any of the real physics I’ve mentioned. But, he hopes to get in a sniper-shot, once in awhile.
It just indicates I’m getting to him….
JD “No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
Bob:”Since it is a black-body thought experiment, the rules are that each plate absorbs all the radiation that hits it. So the blue plate absorbs the red arrow as well as the green arrow”
JD “you do this while accusing me of changing the properties of the blue plate.”
Wiki:
Black body: “A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
Hilarious.
JD, we have refuted all of your lame, incorrect, not real, pseudo physics.
Crack open a book, learn some real science.
I recommend an introductory Astronomy text as thermodynamics is obviously well beyond your science skills.
Not that Astronomy is easy, but it starts out that way.
Maybe you can start with memorizing the order of the planets starting with Mercury.
Maybe this mnemonic device will help
My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nachos
JDHuffman says:
“Of course, he cannot refute any of the real physics Ive mentioned.”
Everyone has except Gordon and Dr Roy’s Emergency Trolling Team.
I don’t think you believe any of it yourself, nobody can have so many outlandish ideas (except Gordon). Sometimes you reveal real insight, and sometimes you go too far, for example saying that you know better than NASA and all Universities.
I think its all a prank, you are just here to upset people.
That’s why you get banned so often.
Wrong Svante. My points have NOT been refuted. You just BELIEVE they have. Your beliefs keep you out of reality.
The “plates” are a perfect example. If they are both considered as black bodies, then moving them slightly apart would not cause one to increase in temperature. The only way that would happen is if the green plate suddenly became an insulator, not allowing the previous 200 Watts/m^2 emission, but restricting it to 133.33.
Your pseudoscience changes the conditions to make it appear as “cold” warming “hot”.
I just throw buckets of water on your false religions. And, if you haven’t notice, I enjoy all of your misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults. That tells me I’m effective!
(This sub-thread is too long, so I won’t come back here. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves about how smart your are.)
Ha!
“(This sub-thread is too long, so I wont come back here. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves about how smart your are.”
As much as he wishes it were so, he cannot make a nature do what it cannot do. And he cannot ever admit error.
So he sheepishly retreats, hoping all will be forgotten by the time he comes back and repeats the same nonsense all over again.
N, JKRATM.
I’ve never seen him quit like that.
I guess I hit the nail on the head.
“N, JKRATM”
I am not insulted because this is in a foreign language.
But when you see JD, could you tell him the jig is up.
Nate, just keep ranting at the mirror.
I suggest that “cooling in comparison to …” (comparable subset of other datasets) is a poor choice of words about a dataset subset (Arctic or N-polar) with a warming trend that exceeds the warming trend of the whole (warming) dataset on topic here, and that “warming less in comparison to (Arctic or N-polar subsets of competing datasets)” is more appropriate, on a busy day of the month for such discussion here.
Thanks for the report, Roy.
+1
0.14 over baseline, Volcanoes and Volcanic Eruptions everywhere. Upper atmosphere cooling that much NASA has to recognise. Sun shut down which is the Elephant in the room, not C02. Dread to see how cold this winter is going to be and how much the UAH drops. No plans for crop production in a cooling world.
I am with you Tim, but it is frustrating to not see a more definitive drop in temperatures not to have taken place, although I still think it is going to happen sooner rather then later.
If it does not cool now -next few years it is not going to happen in my opinion given the natural factors which influence the climate now in a cold mode.
Then again where is al the AGW?
Salvatore…”….it is frustrating to not see a more definitive drop in temperatures not to have taken place….”
With a system as complex as our atmosphere, with it’s complex ocean interface, it may be months, if not years to see a response. I think the present response and the cooler September are significant.
Of course, it could always be nothing more than a weather anomaly.
Tim…”No plans for crop production in a cooling world”.
Excellent point. Or for any major disaster.
The state of the climate is ESSENTIALLY NEUTRAL, AND BORING.
Trends have been down this year but the recent rise in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures is something that has to be watched . If this rise is just a blip in a other wise down trend then the cooling trend is intact. On the other hand if this rise in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures persist the cooling trend will not continue.
I think the recent rise to +.31c for average oceanic sea surface temperatures is a blip , but what do I know. I thought as recently as a month ago that the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures would be on a continuing down trend.
On the other hand those supporting AGW have nothing to cheer about as the global temperatures and for that matter overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are failing to make any additional progress on the upside.
So it is just more wait and see, but with that said I think many answers will be answered from now – next few years.
Hunger Stones and Tree Ring evidence suggests solar cycle influence on climate
by Francis Tucker Manns Ph.D., P.Geo (Ontario) Artesian Geological Research
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/hunger-stones-and-tree-ring-evidence-suggests-solar-cycle-influence-on-climate/
Salvatore, there’s no need to cheer. AGW is proceeding on pace. CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, there is still a greenhouse effect, and natural factors are happening as they have been happening forever. (We just came out of mild La Nina.) Decades have been getting warmer by 0.10-0.15 C/decades (UAH LT v6 data; higher with RSS), and this will continue, because physics.
on pace? On what pace?
I hope you’re right Dave. But the NH is far more variable than many people like to admit and a reversion to mean of the past 1,2,3, or 400yrs or so could be very bad news. We’ve been very lucky to live in this century.
Show me the data…..
“The state of the climate is ESSENTIALLY NEUTRAL, AND BORING.”
An el nino could spice things up:
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Thank you Dr. Spencer for your work.
I am curious whether you have an opinion how (or if) a record cold thermosphere and shrinking mesopause will affect the troposphere?
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
No effect whatsoever. The amount of mass up there is almost non-existent…it’s the edge of space.
I think he is referring to the hypothesis that space weather could affect circulation patterns in the troposphere. The most popular being weakening of the polar vortex and resulting wavy jet stream causing arctic blasts in the NH and blocking patterns that cause flooding and heatwaves.
Not so much short term global average temperature.
I think what we need is an up to date chart of those 97 computer models versus real temperature , The old ones are now 5 years old
John Christy updates that every year. I guess I don’t necessarily post it here.
The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.
If you go all the way back to Sept 1979 you only end up with .3 C of warming. At that time people were telling us it has cooled .2-.5 C from the 1940s. Arguably, there’s been no warming in the last 80 years.
Now that’s a real hiatus.
Richard…”Now thats a real hiatus”.
On those words, I am taking a hiatus myself. Off to the kitchen to summon up a snack.
Richard: UAH LT has 0.5 C of warming since 1979. RSS LT has 0.8 C.
Since 1979 would be right smack dab at the end of a long period of cooling that would suggest much of the warming since then may be natural.
Lets look at from the standpoint of the government objective to hold warming under 2 deg C. .5 in another 60 years would be 1.25C assuming of course there isn’t another natural cooling period which has tended to occur about once every 4 decades.
Besides that fact a little bit of warming is probably a good thing. Most of the people in the world live close to the equator and far far away from the poles. Even polar bears don’t live that close to the pole. Seems the last thing many want is for the world to be more ideal for humans.
Sorry David, but it only looks like a lot of warming because of the noise. You are confusing noise with signal. Naturally, we know you won’t accept reality.
Here’s another view based on averaging the spring and summer months to limit ENSO effects and ignoring years with large ENSO and’or volcanic effects.
1980-81 -.06C
1990… .01C
1995-96 .08C
2001-02 .18C
2007… .15C
2014… .18C
2018… .20C
Same answer. A total warming of .3 C or less.
PS. And, as I showed you elsewhere, we are now exactly the same as Sept. 1996. That is, no warming at all for 22 years.
No, Richard, you are the one relying on noise to give you your results. You’re basically going off the difference between very short-term averages at the beginning and end of the record.
To avoid letting noise (interannual weather effects) dominate the result, use ALL DATA – by running a linear regression.
For UAH 6.0, the trend from 1979 to Dec 2017 is 0.013 C per annum, or a total rise of 0.507 (+/- 0.06) over 39 years of the satellite record.
That’s a best estimate of the overall change so far. It’s not the truth (TM), but it’s a much better estimate than joining two dots at either end of the time series. THAT’s letting the noise confuse the signal.
barry, don’t forget to mention:
1) The “0.013” is well within the expected range of “natural variability”.
2) The “0.013” is well below the average of expected range of IPCC models.
IOW, after nearly 40 years of satellite data, there still is NO statistically meaningful “global warming”.
Sorry Barry but I’m not buying it. It is noise that is driving the linear trend due to the amplitude of the noise. Now, if you had thousands of years of data this would be fine, but we don’t. The period is far too short.
Hence, if you want to really understand what is happening you need to eliminate the noise as best you can. That is what I did.
You don’t like the result because it goes against what you want to believe. You really didn’t refute what I did. To do that you would have to specify what noise I was relying on. The fact you couldn’t actually come up with anything is more than telling.
That only works if you believe that ENSO is responsible for all the noise in the data.
It is noise that is driving the linear trend due to the amplitude of the noise.
Ok, let’s see what effect a big el Nino has if we look at all the data from the beginning of the record – nearly 40 years.
Jan 1979 – Dec 2017: 0.129 C/decade
Jan 1979 – Dec 2016: 0.125 C/decade
Jan 1979 – Dec 2015: 0.114 C/decade [el Nino removed]
The decadal trend went up by 1 hundredth of a degree C thanks to the 2016 el Nino.
Did the 2016 el Nino make a difference to the overall trend? Is 0.1 C/century significant, to your mind?
The positive trend is stable for multidecadal periods. Furthermore, all those trends are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Not so for trends with less than 2 decades worth of monthly data.
How does removing the 2016 el Nino affect the overall change? Let’s extend the trend to 40 years straight using the trend immediately before and after the 2016 el Nino.
0.0114/yr x 40 = 0.456
0.0125/yr x 40 = 0.500
About as expected 0.04C difference over 2/5ths of a century.
The presumption that non-ENSO years contain no effect from noise (internal variability) is countered just by looking at the data and seeing how large the monthly changes can be in non-ENSO years.
You dont like the result because it goes against what you want to believe.
In this paragraph you elected to speak about my motivations etc. Just for the record, it was you that went there first, not me.
Good try Barry but you get an F. Only removing one El Nino does not remove all the noise. In fact, it does nothing to remove the affects of volcanoes and the AMO. That is why you have to dig deeper as I did. Think of where you are if you get a .1 change for each one of dozens of factors.
My technique attempts to limit the PDO, AMO, ENSO and volcanoes. You aren’t going to see that by avoiding one El Nino.
I think following graph shows exactly the problem.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2014.66/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2014.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.66/to:2018.75
Now look at what we see, no warming at all for 22 years when you skip just the one El Nino and start after the AMO flipped and after both the volcanic eruptions.
22 years? The trend line only goes for 18 years.
But let’s look at short-term trends, just like you’re doing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2017/trend
One year of data changes the trend radically. ENSO (and other short term variability) has a significant impact on the trend if the time period you use is short.
Let’s see the same thing but now with twice as much data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/to:2017/trend
It’s not a fluke that the difference is greatly reduced. The power of using a larger set of data points is that the trend is much less affected by noise. That was a large el Nino we just added at the end.
That’s why you should use more data.
Someone wrote downthread:
How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.
You can get all sorts of answers you want just by making choices. We can play this game ad nauseum, each getting opposite results.
The best method is to avoid making choices, or make as few as possible. If you must make choices you have to justify them objectively. You haven’t done that. You haven’t even properly explained your methods. All I can work out is that you seem to think that there is little to no variability outside ENSO and volcanos, and that averaging Spring and Summer months removes interannual variability.
If Winter and Autumn have warmed faster than the other seasons (God’s eye view), then you’ve effectively reduced the overall warming by excising them. In fact, Winters have warmed more than Summers over the whole record, so that’s exactly what you’ve done.
You haven’t responded to any of my points. You’ve made separate points.
My technique attempts to limit the PDO, AMO, ENSO and volcanoes
Is your technique described anywhere, such as a formal paper, or even a blog post with details?
How did you ascertain that AMO is not merely aliasing global temps?
Barry claims: “One year of data changes the trend radically. ENSO (and other short term variability) has a significant impact on the trend”
Thank you.
Now you are starting to catch on. There is no period of data in the satellite period which is long enough to avoid this problem. The full data set is just as noise compromised as pretty much anything else.
This is why I used multiple years with minimum noise to see if my choices were at least a little better. They supported my view that much of the trend is created by noise. However, they do show there is a warming trend. You should be pleased.
While there is warming, my choices also show no change over the past 20+ years. This really puts a damper on the idea that increased CO2 is a strong warming agent.
Barry asks: “Is your technique described anywhere, such as a formal paper, or even a blog post with details?”
I described it last month but I did modify it a little. Results did not change.
– Avoid major volcanic eruptions (year of eruption + 3)
– Avoid full year ENSO events
– Use summer/spring months to limit other ENSO influences and AMO (Used April-Sept. throwing away high and low months)
What you find is it is very hard to find years where there are no influences. But it is possible to find pairs of years where the influence averages out. These are the years that looked the best.
1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
1990….. 14.5 C (58.1F) .01C
1995-96 14.6 C (58.2F) .08C
2001-02 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
2007….. 14.7 C (58.3F) .15C
2014….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
2018….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .20C
Barry next discovers that you have to be very careful in the selection of years:
“How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.”
Or, …
March 2004 .35
March 2018 .25
So, we cooled .10 in 14 years.
Now you know why I didn’t select 2004. Way too big of swings within the year.
I didn’t say this was easy.
Ok, so the same method I commented on previously. No need to repeat those criticisms.
Now you know why I didn’t select 2004. Way too big of swings within the year.
0.58C variability within a year is “way too big” to include in your analysis?
Is there an actual numerical limit here? Would a swing of 0.3 throughout a year be too large? That would eliminate nearly half of your selection (1980, 1990, 2001 2007).
You’ve included 2018 even though it begins with a la Nina which extends to the FMA quarter. So your final year includes cooling noise.
Your choice of 2007 also includes a la Nina which begins in the JJA quarter, thereby introducing cooling noise.
So now I wonder about your selections at the beginning of the record….
The first year – 1980 – begins with an el Nino up to the JFM quarter, and as you know those effects persist for a few months.
So your selections are influenced by warm noise at the beginning of the series and cool noise at the end. Seems designed to reduce the overall difference.
“The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.”
Different ways of looking at the very wiggly data. Can look at the low values for example.
We certainly have reached a low month for the year, 0.14. Lowest in about 3 years.
Interestingly, every year prior to 2016, had months lower than 0.14.
This years low month (of the last 12 mo), is the 3rd highest on record.
“This years low month (of the last 12 mo), is the 3rd highest on record.”
That deserves a big SO WHAT?
The past 17 years are the highest on record, correct? So it makes sense that there will be many ways to say “… highest on record.” But the record is what percentage of anthropological time, let alone the full geological time since Earth formed?
The fact is no one knows whether tropospheric temperatures will go up or down from where they are now.
Chic Bowdrie says:
The past 17 years are the highest on record, correct?
Yes. Thanks.
I don’t get you, Chic. You brought up the issue of how low temps are this month and this year compared to 17 y ago. Now all of sudden geologic time comes in??
Nate, while many focus on trends, I’m just pointing out that temperatures are creeping down to where they were 17 years ago. Yet we really don’t know whether we are in store for more cooling or warming.
With regard to geological time, global temperatures have been all over the place. Only in the last couple centuries have we had anything close to a reliable record of temperature. So to say “highest on record” isn’t really saying much if you consider how likely it is that global temperatures have been this warm many times in the past.
Well, then in that context, your original post “deserves a big SO WHAT?”
I agree that we don’t what the future holds. But given the recent ENSO behavior, plus the tendency of summers to have lowest anomalies, I will predict the near future.
The next 3 month average I predict will be warmer than this months value.
If one is predisposed to see global temperatures on an upward course, then he/she should take note that they are back to where they were some time ago regardless of the trend.
If one sees global temperatures as oscillating between historically normal values, then “so what” would be an appropriate response.
I am trained as a scientist, and am predisposed to the idea that science generally works. Its track record is excellent.
The science behind the GHE and its enhancement is well-developed, physics-based, and its basic mechanisms tested.
Its predictions from 40 y ago for accelerated warming and other details have been born out-for the most part.
AGW COULD turn out to be wrong. But I see no reason to be predisposed to the idea that it MUST be wrong. Have a hard time understanding why some people are.
Maybe you can enlighten me.
Nate,
To quote a baseball legend as the US playoffs begin, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
The science behind the GHE is that CO2 causes global warming. That is a hypothesis. There is no definite evidence that CO2 causes any warming, well-developed, physics-based models and predictions not withstanding.
I am curious about the “basic mechanisms tested.” Please enlighten me.
I am not just trained as a scientist, it is my livelihood.
“basic mechanisms tested”
Co2 absor*ption lines vs. pressure in the laboratory.
The spectrum of IR leaving Earth as measured in space.
The spectrum of DWIR as observed on Earth.
Increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere over a decade observed-in the CO2 part of the spectrum, both from space and on surface, consistent with increased CO2 over the period.
Stratospheric cooling observed.
Not to mention weather models incorporating the GHE. They work very well.
Simulations, similar to weather models, incorporating all we know about atmospheric physics, show warming with addition of CO2.
etc.
“It aint over till its over.” explains why we should keep up the research. All science is provisional, really.
Doesn’t explain your predisposition.
Increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere over a decade observed-in the CO2 part of the spectrum…
radiative forcing : unknown notion in thermodynamics, based on the arbitrary hypothesis of no dependence of the vertical temperature gradient on radiative phenomena. It has been known from the beginning that this assumption is false and has never been shown to be an acceptable simplification.
Simulations, similar to weather models, incorporating all we know about atmospheric physics, show warming with addition of CO2.
https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-2.jpg
Failed modeling.
-> A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.
-> Climatology does not do it.
-> Climatology is a pseudoscience.
At this rate, we can put everything into question, everything.
No, this particular graph is to be put in relation with two perfectly identified and recognized problems: the absence of hot spot and the overvaluation of the warming by models.
In such a case, the normal scientific behavior would be to rework the basic hypothesis of which one is perfectly aware that they are only arbitrary simplifying assumptions. They have never been subject to any verification.
Otherwise :
1. So, better play dice.
2. Right, TS is obviously inconsistent with the other data.
And, I can not imagine how weather balloons data could be corrupted by the temperatures of the stratosphere.
“radiative forcing : unknown notion in thermodynamics”
Radiative forcing is simply a statement that at TOA, there is a NET input of power. And as a result, there must be warming of the system below the TOA.
IOW, it is a statement of the First law of Thermodynamics. Hardly an unknown.
As to how that warming of the system gets distributed, that is another question. Evidence indicates that most of it ends up in the ocean.
Radiative forcing is defined at TOA as an imbalance between the amount of input energy and the amount of outgoing energy. Considering this imbalance as a forcing, thus equating heating with insulation, is incompatible with thermodynamics.
Once again, this notion of radiative forcing is a specialty of climatology based on the hypothesis of invariance of the thermal gradient. It leaves the climate system with only one way to restore equilibrium: translation of the thermal profile.
That such nonsense is still accepted in the scientific world is just a demonstration of its state of disrepair.
“Considering this imbalance as a forcing, thus equating heating with insulation, is incompatible with thermodynamics.”
Forcing is just another name for imbalance – get over it.
Again it is non other than 1LOT, a key PART of thermo.
“the hypothesis of invariance of the thermal gradient. It leaves the climate system with only one way to restore equilibrium: translation of the thermal profile.”
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
“And, I can not imagine how weather balloons data could be corrupted by the temperatures of the stratosphere.”
I can’t either, since it does no averaging over altitude, as microwave measurements from orbit do.
Forcing is just another name for imbalance
Not at all. Radiative imbalance may be due to different causes having different effects on the system. The concept of radiative forcing equates the imbalance with an increase in heating and therefore with a particular cause. Hence all the foolishness about backradiations.
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
Oui mais ce n’est qu’un outil de travail et ne vaut que ce que vaut une théorie non vértifiée.
I can’t either, since it does no averaging over altitude, as microwave measurements from orbit do.
So your argument is not valid in this case. Sorry for not specifying it, but the data in Christy’s graph are those of the weather balloons (https://www.mwenb.nl/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot).
If one paper should overturn a theory that has lots of other other support
But what in the case of anthropogenic global warming?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing.
– the glaciers have been melting since the mid-19th century,
– the sea level is rising since the same peridode,
– temperature proxies reveal no particular behavior in the 20th century,
– Station temperatures are inconsistent with all proxies and therefore do not allow to say that the warming of the twentieth century is exceptional.
The only thing that is clear and demonstrated is the failure of the theory.
Oups.
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
Yes, but it is only a working tool and is only worth what a non-verified theory is worth.
“The concept of radiative forcing equates the imbalance with an increase in heating and therefore with a particular cause.”
Making no sense, Phi.
A positive imbalance MUST lead to heating, again by 1LOT.
And forcing can be caused by many things, the sun, the GHE, volcanoes, etc
“Station temperatures are inconsistent with all proxies and therefore do not allow to say that the warming of the twentieth century is exceptional.”
There is no reason to give more weight, as you do, to proxies over direct temperature measurements.
That makes no sense. Proxies are used when there is no other choice.
Making no sense, Phi.
I acknowledge that my sentence was unclear.
The concept of radiative forcing poses the equality between an increase of the incoming energy and a decrease of the outgoing energy.
These two causes do not have the same effects on the system.
As increasing the power of a heater does not have the same effect as adding insulation.
It is a little strange to have to insist on these basic notions.
There is no reason to give more weight, as you do, to proxies over direct temperature measurements.
The weight to give depends on the consistency of the data. It turns out that the good, high-frequency proxies are consistent among them at low frequencies, they are consistent with the TLTs, with melting glaciers, with sea level and so on. Station temperatures are consistent only between them.
I add that to know whether the twentieth century has experienced or not an exceptional warming, proxies are essential. As they are not consistent with the temperatures of the stations, this exceptional character can obviously not be demonstrated. We can just remark that validated proxies do not detect anything particular in modern times.
“We can just remark that validated proxies do not detect anything particular in modern times.”
How do you know they are valid, other than by comparing them to thermometers?
C’mon, proxies are, by definition, imperfect at measuring temperature. Many assumptions must be made. In some cases they mix up temperature and precipitation.
Phi’
“As increasing the power of a heater does not have the same effect as adding insulation.
It is a little strange to have to insist on these basic notions.”
What is strange is how often you make assertions without providing explanation or evidence.
AFIK, increasing heater power or increasing insulation could have the same effect on my house.
How do you know they are valid, other than by comparing them to thermometers?
I said, validation by correlations of high frequencies, so using the thermometers.
” increasing heater power or increasing insulation could have the same effect on my house.”
The temperature distribution is generally very different, the thermal contents are not identical and the thermal flows are quite different.
The thermometer in your living room can not account for that.
You know, thermodynamics is not completely useless in real life.
“The temperature distribution is generally very different, the thermal contents are not identical and the thermal flows are quite different.
The thermometer in your living room can not account for that.”
OK. Good point.
So for Earth, these distributions of heat maybe different for solar forcing vs GHG vs Volcano. I think that has been studied.
But is the evidence about distribution of heat ruling out GHG?
It has been noted that the tropical ‘HOT SPOT’ should be there whatever the warming mechanism.
So for Earth, these distributions of heat maybe different for solar forcing vs GHG vs Volcano. I think that has been studied.
It is unfortunately impossible to quantify and even to evaluate. It would be necessary to be able to calculate and model convection for that.
But is the evidence about distribution of heat ruling out GHG?
No. it’s just that we can not quantify the effect of an atmospheric CO2 increase.
It has been noted that the tropical HOT SPOT should be there whatever the warming mechanism.
The hot spot, or, rather the tropospheric amplification in low and mid-latitudes is only related to the variation of temperature and not to the origin of this variation.
“Failed modeling.
-> A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.
-> Climatology does not do it.
-> Climatology is a pseudoscience.”
Well in the Christy plot, the model and the data don’t match. You assume that means the “founding hypothesis” is wrong.
We can’t conclude that yet, because:
1. the model may have some wrong assumptions or errors. Clearly you see big differences in the model results.
2.The data, which had to be analyzed and massaged could be corrupted.
3. Both the models and the data could be cherry-picked to maximize the differences.
4. Analysis done by others could disagree.
5. There could be some confounding variables.
In fact #2, 3, 4 are likely. Christy excluded RSS and RATPAC which have much stronger warming. The cooling stratosphere may have corrupted the upper troposphere data that is shown.
” A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.”
If one paper should overturn a theory that has lots of other other support, then Relativity should have been overturned in 2011, when an experiment found faster than light particles.
Of course it wasn’t, and the error in the experiment was found in 2012.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17560379
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_temperature
Average annual temperature of NYC is 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit
Average annual temperature of Boston is 51.7 degrees Fahrenheit
NYC is 3.6 degrees warmer than Boston on average.
According to NASA satellite measurements, the earth is warming at the rate of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade, or 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/
Divide 3.6 by 0.23 and you learn that Boston is projected to be as warm as NYC in 15.7 decades, or 157 years.
No one knows if temperatures will continue as they are going, but if they do, in 157 years Boston will be as warm as NYC is currently. Would that be a sky-falling catastrophe?
Have I done this right, you professionals?
Taking a 40 year trend and projecting it straight 150 years into the future as some kind of temperature prediction is a complete nonsense , don’t even go there
Will it be a catastrophe when, in 157 years, Boston and New Year have 5 feet of sea level rise?
Also, Eben is right.
“Will it be a catastrophe when, in 157 years, Boston and New Year have 5 feet of sea level rise?”
Yes, probably would be catastrophic. Though that would require a sea level rise 300% faster than is currently occuring.
Would it be a catastrophe if in New York and Boston there was a 5 foot sea level rise in 450 years?
“450 years”
Its a good question. But civilization and its major cities and agricultural regions, and water supplies, have had hundreds of years of climate and sea level stability to develop and flourish.
The legacy of what people decided hundreds of years ago is still affecting us today, formation of Parliament, acceptance of slavery, the American Revolution, the writing of the constitution.
What we decide to do today may well be cursed or praised by people in a coupled hundred years.
“cursed or praised”
The smart money is on both.
Have I done this right, you professionals?
The .13 C degrees is global temperature.
The tropics [40% of surface surface] doesn’t warm very much and all ocean surfaces [tropics is about 80% ocean, btw] has not and should not warm as much as land areas, and oceans cover 70% of earth’s surface area. Global ocean average temperature is 17 C [62.6 F] and global land surface is about 10 C [50 F]. And combined it is global average temperature of 15 C [59 F].
Our globally warming should have higher increase in Arctic regions- and we call Boston is close enough to arctic regions.
As wild guess Boston could warm by say 5 times as much- or it could also cool faster, so if imagine the trend continues, about 30 years rather 157 years.
And large part of such warming is nights becoming warmer.
And one have warmer days, on average, but doesn’t mean highest temperature days become hotter.
You also could get some increase due to Urban Heat island effect- growing cities with larger urban areas.
Willliam,
Land in NH has already warmed > 2 deg F in 40 y. So its happening way faster than you calculated.
https://tinyurl.com/yan8q6e4
The blockade of circulation over the Atlantic will draw air from the north over Europe.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Just a wild guess but I think we’re going to see below average anomalies again by 2020.
Wild guess or wishful thinking?
Has anyone run control charts on the absolute temperature data and the anomaly data for the entire period of time?
Use 3 standard deviations for the upper and lower control limits.
This will allow one to see how much of the data falls within the the control limits which will be common cause variation and those points that fall outside the control limits which will be special cause variation. Maybe a cause could be applied to these or maybe not.
Would also identify how much of the data is or is not statistically different from the average for the entire period.
Greg, I have looked at applying control charts a bit. The problem is that the data is highly auto-correlated. For example, the rule “7 or more consecutive points on one side of the average” gets broken regularly. Thus it is clear that MUCH of the change is “special cause”.
Greg…”Has anyone run control charts on the absolute temperature data and the anomaly data for the entire period of time?”
The historical temperature record has been seriously fudged by NOAA. They have gone back in the record and adjusted it to what they think would represent a better past interpretation.
Arrogance is the new science.
GHCN belong to NOAA and NASA GISS and Had-crut rely on the GHCN record. GHCN has gone through mammoth changes over the past 2 decades and even before that, the record was piecemeal. According to chiefio (Google the name) 90% of the reporting data stations used by GHCN have been slashed. NOAA has admitted directly to slashing over 75% of them and they are using less than 1500 stations globally.
The Australian BOM fail to recognize temperatures before 1900, claiming they are not reliable.
How can the record be reliable much before the 1960s? In the first part of the 20th century, we had two major wars with Russia and China on lock down. Besides all that, very few people traveled to remote parts of the globe till modern times.
It’s a joke to talk about a historical record seriously.
“GHCN-M version 4 contains monthly mean temperature for over 25,000 stations….”
https://tinyurl.com/yc9unksy
See also:
Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, B.E. Gleason, J.J. Rennie, and J.H. Lawrimore, 0: The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4. J. Climate, 0, (2018) https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1
Another update.
https://tinyurl.com/yc9vx6q7
Explanations:
1. Globally, tropospheric amplification is expected. It is well observed in high frequencies but not in tendencies.
2. Stations readings are expected to be affected by anthropogenic perturbations. The bias could be linear.
-> TLT amplitude is reduced by a factor of 0.6 to match high frequencies of surface.
-> T surface are reduced by a linear factor of 0.1 C per decade.
This is most likely a good evaluation of the UHI effect.
Mr Spencer,
You turned on italics in your opening post and forgot to turn it off. Apparently that causes every post in this thread to be in italics. Do you have the ability to edit your original comment?
You are correct! I was wondering why everything was in italics.
Thanks for fixing it, Dr. Spencer.
David,
Why? Roy himself doesn’t even bother anymore.
Thank you. Zealotry is ignored not followed except by fellow zealots.
Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they aren’t.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
Joe…”Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they arent”.
UAH are the only organization with integrity these days when it comes to gathering data and examining it without bias.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“UAH are the only organization with integrity these days when it comes to gathering data and examining it without bias.”
In this context how is RSS failing, in your opinion?
DA…”In this context how is RSS failing, in your opinion?”
They have sold out to the status quo, like NOAA, GISS, Had-crut and the IPCC.
What do you mean by “sold out?”
DA, what do you mean by “mean”?
Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they arent.
I read the linked page and you have completely misrepresented it.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning – may cause nightmares.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like
sheldon…”This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning may cause nightmares.”
************
Propaganda, Sheldon.
January 1979:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Global_Temp_Maps(new)/1979/JANUARY%201979.png
August 2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/august2018/201808_map.png
Note the large swaths of white.
No red anywhere.
2018 clearly looks warmer.
And the data show it was, by 0.52 C according to UAH.
Anyway this is nothing but a cherry pick, and warming (or cooling) cannot be deduced from comparing two individual months. Talk about fudging.
David, what if the months are completely alike? For example, let’s compare Sept. 2018 and Sept. 1996:
Both are ENSO neutral coming off of La Nina winters.
Both are near solar minimums.
Both are during +PDO conditions and +AMO conditions.
Seem quite similar, don’t they. So, how much warming has 40% of all human CO2 emissions caused over that time? 0.00
Yup, both have exactly the same anomaly. No warming at all in 22 years. How do you explain it?
+2
Some people have this strange idea that the only thing affecting annual temps for surface or lower troposphere is ENSO.
Wanting to win points makes people stupid.
Richard, no two months are “completely alike.” Not at all. See what Barry wrote just above me.
Barry and David,
You are both nitpicking. If you ignore the effects of ENSO etc. and compare clusters of temperatures instead of a single month, then you could say that the past eight month’s temperatures are the same as or less than those in 2014, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2005, 2002, 1995, 1991, and 1988.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase. We are now at the same tropospheric temperature as we were at least 17 years ago.
It’s pretty simple – if you rely on a tiny number of data points then you will be emphasizing the noise over the signal. Stats 101.
It is easy to find a week’s worth of daily temps in Spring that are cooler than some other week in Winter.
Those who rely on such fluctuations to tell themselves stories might well espouse that Winter is warmer than Spring.
But if one uses all the Spring/Winter data, one will not be fooling oneself.
Even in ENSO neutral years UAH temps can swing by 0.3C over a few months. This means that if the overall change is definitely 0.5C over 4 decades (God-s eye view), then it is statistically possible one could find a cluster of several months late in the record at similar temps to the beginning. Does this indicate anything about overall change? No. All it tells us is the comparative temps for precisely those clusters, and absolutely nothing about the whole record.
That’s why we use all the data, and don’t cherry-pick. We deceive ourselves very easily if we arbitrarily remove data – and especially so if we deliberately look for selections that match our preferences. This is the epitome of bad practice. Winter actually is cooler than Spring, despite you having found in many years a week’s Spring temps cooler than another week in Winter of the same year. That’s weather, not climate.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase.
I completely agree – it can also mean a decrease. And if the trend isn’t statistically significant, then we don’t necessarily have a trend at all. Nor does the lack of a statistically significant trend tell us that there isn’t one. So we do more work – with all the data – to get the best estimate on what is happening.
We don’t make claims based on highly selected data. Unless we want to mislead.
Notice that neither David nor Barry can actually define anything that would make my comparison invalid. Their comments are essentially nothing but denial. I suspect they don’t even want to look.
In reality, finding very similar points and comparing them is probably much superior to a short trend based on an extremely noisy data.
Barry,
“Its pretty simple….”
Yet you make it as obscure as possible by including such nonsense as comparing weeks in spring with weeks in winter, which I didn’t do. Take your advice, do more work, and look more closely at the clusters of months in the years I identified. Are they not all about the same temperature as the past few months of this year?
Imagine a starting point on the equator and travel back and forth across the equator but spend the vast majority of time north of the equator. When you arrive back at the equator, are you still north of the equator based on the fact that you spent more time there?
Richard M,
“In reality, finding very similar points and comparing them is probably much superior to a short trend based on an extremely noisy data.”
Comparing actual points now with the past is what you do if you want to know where you are now. Looking at a trend is what you do if you want to bet on where you will be in the future. Both techniques are valuable and I would not say one is superior to the other as they serve different purposes.
Comparing actual points now with the past is what you do if you want to know where you are now.
Comparing points can easily mislead you.
Me seasonal argument is sound. There are often days and whole weeks in Spring that are colder than certain days or weeks in Winter.
If you discovered a week in Spring that was colder than an average Winter, would you then “know where you are,” and conclude it was the Winter season?
No, because of variability, comparing points may mislead you as to general conditions of “where you are now.”
If you have more data, use it. You’ll almost always get a better estimate. If you average all the Spring data and average all the Winter data, what are the odds you will be confused about which period is cooler than the other?
BTW, trend analysis does not necessarily have to be used for predicting the future. I never consider that when analysing observed data. I just want to know if there has been change, how much, and how uncertain the change is. That comprises the interest for 99% of trend discussion on this blog. Not predicting the future from linear regression.
Your seasonal argument may have been sound and Richard may or may not have obscured meaning by ignoring it. You can out-box all you want comparing seasons and calculating trends, but I won’t throw in the towel. I repeat: An increasing temperature trend does not necessarily mean a net increase in temperature.
If temperatures continue to drop, the “equivalent temperature clusters” will go back farther in time, if not grow in number. Of course if temps go the other way, it will be more likely that any pause is over or, on centurial time scales, never occurred.
Catching up on a point, Chic.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase.
That’s right.
We are now at the same tropospheric temperature as we were at least 17 years ago.
That doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been an increase in general global temperature. that is, the background temp may be warmer, obscured because of intrinsic variability.
A proper estimate would test in multiple ways – and incorporate the physical world behind the statistics.
OK, let me try.
How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.
I can play this game all day. And it proves what exactly?
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
I’m not calling you a liar, just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
That is exactly the point I am making to Richard M.
It’s not nit-picking.
Insinuating I compared weeks in spring with weeks in winter is something obtuse, if not nitpicking.
Furthermore, you were not making exactly the same point to Richard, because you were arguing using all the data points to, I assume, find trends amidst noise. We were both using only the most recent data to point out that temperatures are back to where they were decades ago.
Although you stayed north of the equator most of the time, you are back at the equator now.
Insinuating I compared weeks in spring with weeks in winter is something obtuse
Huh? I never said you discussed seasons. This is my argument on the pitfalls of comparing points or small clusters of them.
And yes, my point to Richard could be paraphrased:
just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
Richard relied on short-term variability (a few months), and compared those short-term points. He ignored 80% of the data in between.
He states that he has removed the variability. He simply hasn’t. He has only emphasised it by getting rid of so much other data. He is committing the error I described with seasonal comparison sing only a day or a week of data.
Statistical analysis – such as linear regression – is how one attempts to find out “where we are” in the most robust fashion.
I know of no formal technique for statistical analysis where the majority of discrete data in a time series is simply discarded. If it is contended that noise should be removed, then subtract the noise from the data points, but don’t throw out the vast majority of data.
“Winter actually is cooler than Spring, despite you having found in many years a weeks Spring temps cooler than another week in Winter of the same year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323144
Changing from weeks to seasons doesn’t absolve you of obtuse behavior.
“Richard relied on short-term variability (a few months), and compared those short-term points.”
Well, yes that is what we are trying to show. If you strip away the noise that creates a trend, you are left with the same temperature at both ends of the trendline. And yes, it’s cherry-picking for the purpose of pointing out that between such and such a time, there has been no warming.
You are in the weeds. Come out and enjoy the flowers.
“If you strip away the noise that creates a trend….”
Make that “If you strip away the noise embedded in a trendline….”
“If you strip away the noise embedded in a trendline”
That has not been done. Richard has simply assumed that his choices strip away noise.
Every single data point is noise. Every single one of them.
I don’t know how to put my point more succinctly than with the seasonal example. There are weeks in Spring that are cooler than certain weeks in Winter. It’s a regular occurrence every year.
Using the assumption Richard goes on – that a little bit of data can tell you “where you are,” you could easily mistake Spring for Winter in a cold week.
[BTW, where I’ve written ‘you’ as you quoted me, it’s colloquial usage, not personal. Just replace with ‘one’, same as I said further up that post. That’s what I meant. The argument was “as if” someone was comparing seasons. You could also change the ‘you’ for ‘one’ in the previous paragraph. I’m not referring to you personally, just as you are not referring to me personally when you say “tell you where you are.”]
Here are some peer-reviewed efforts to reduce the noise – without deleting any data.
Subtracting ENSO and other oceanic effects from data:
https://tinyurl.com/yc8ab2b5
Subtracting ENSO, volcanic and solar variation:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
I’ve never seen an attempt in the scientific literature to reduce noise simply by removing the majority of data. Is there any precedence? Is there an example anywhere in the scientific literature you could point to? Seems like a fatally poor method to me, on the basis of what one learns in the first couple of classes on statistical analysis.
Here is a question for Richard – what is the statistical uncertainty in his result?
Barry,
I’m beginning to think that no matter how I say it, it won’t be understood. So this will be my last comment on trends: Are you warmer now than in 2002, because the trend says you should be?
I believe I understand what you are saying, and have been arguing what I think is wrong with it. To whit:
You are saying that some period of monthly temps in the past, averaged, is equivalent to some average of monthly temps recently.
And you are saying that this the soundest way of determining whether general conditions now are warmer than some time in the past or not.
If this is not the argument you are making, could you please clarify?
Barry,
Yes that is correct. It is the best, if not only, way to compare temperatures now to the past assuming the measurement devices are consistent.
Nathan, the problem is 2004 was a very erratic year. For example:
March 2004 0.35
March 2018 0.25
So we cooled .10 C in 14 years. That is why I didn’t use it in my monthly analysis. It really isn’t ENSO neutral. It was during a period of high ENSO activity even though there were periods that didn’t make the official ENSO list.
What you found is that the ENSO index in and of itself is not often a perfect tool to try and determine climate effects. Several papers have tried to minimize ENSO effects but often just blindly using some index.
In my full analysis I average 1996 with 1995 because I thought that was a better overall representation. 1996 was generally dominated by La Nina effects except possibly for July. It could be that was the only month that truly represented the climate signal for the entire year.
So I DO understand your argument, thank you Chic.
Do you understand my responses to it and will you reply to them directly?
Richard,
You have stated that you believe the change over the satellite period is about 0.3C.
What is the uncertainty on this figure? Obviously it’s not exact, so what’s the upper and lower bound?
And how did you work that out?
Gordon,
the UAH map that you reference (August 2018), shows the temperature anomaly from the baseline period 1981-2010. So it is showing about 23 years of warming.
I am showing warming since 1880. About 138 years of warming.
The UAH map doesn’t go “red” until the temperature anomaly is +7.5 degrees Celsius. Would you even be alive at this temperature? The scale used makes it look as if there is not much temperature change happening. Change the scale, and things would look different.
My map goes “red” when the temperature anomaly is greater than +2.0 degrees Celsius. The limit that the IPCC decided on.
You need to compare apples with apples.
I agree with everything you are saying.
EXCEPT … “Would you even be alive at this temperature?”
Sheldon…”I am showing warming since 1880. About 138 years of warming”.
Sorry, I misread your dates.
Still, have you taken into account the Little Ice Age, that ended around 1850? It featured 400 years of global temps up to 2C below normal.
When your graphics began in 1880, how much was re-warming?
Below which normal? What baseline are you using for that figure?
Gordon,
my map does not show the “cause” of the warming. Only the “theoretical” amount of warming.
So I agree with your comments about the Little Ice Age. In my opinion, the “cause” of the warming is still open for debate. For example, the warming from 1910 to 1940.
I am a skeptic, NOT an alarmist. The map is based on GISTEMP, but I still question whether GISTEMP is “correct”. I have to base the map on something, and it was convenient to use GISTEMP.
I show people the map to promote discussion. Not to try and force people to believe a particular view.
One of the ideas that I am suggesting, is that the +1.5 and +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, are not reasonable. A lot of the world has already warmed by over +1.5 and +2.0, but I don’t see evidence that this has caused a terrible disaster. Most of the “extreme” warming is in cold areas. It might have even made these areas “better”, in some ways. Note that “better” is a subjective term.
Bobdesbond,
I calculated the warming rates (degrees Celsius per century), and multiplied it by the number of centuries, giving a temperature increase (degrees Celsius), since 1880.
So my baseline is 1880, but the temperature increase is “theoretical”, because many places didn’t measure temperatures starting in 1880.
So my temperature increases are a “guess”, but based on the temperature data available. Nobody can give you an “exact” temperature increase, and you shouldn’t believe anybody who says that they can.
Sheldon wrote:
“A lot of the world has already warmed by over +1.5 and +2.0….”
The 1.5 C and 2.0 C refer to the global average, not regional temperatures. The average temperature on land will be about 50% higher (as it is so far).
Sheldon also wrote:
“but I dont see evidence that this has caused a terrible disaster.”
Either you aren’t looking, or a bias is getting in your way.
PS: Define “terrible.”
GR says:
“Still, have you taken into account the Little Ice Age, that ended around 1850? It featured 400 years of global temps up to 2C below normal.”
No it didn’t, and you’ve never presented any evidence of that, even though you’ve been asked several times.
Hi – what’s the base period on those anomaly maps. Thanks.
If you mean those of UAH: 1981-2010.
If you mean what SW produced, it is originating from GISS: 1951-1980, and thus are anomalies then 0.42 C higher than if they had been generated wrt 1981-2010.
Great work as always, Roy.
Like that you have Australia separately.
Would be interesting if you could somehow separate out some other regions —
say Europe, SE Asia, Africa etc
cheers
And the SURFACE
Satellites can’t measure surface temperatures. They don’t even measure atmospheric temperatures.
That was kind of the point I was making.
.. but they do a knock-up job of measuring global sea level.
Yes, the do. It’s really very impressive.
… and ice concentration, be it extent, area or volume!
Yes (but the volume is modeled).
Amazing we can go onto our computer every day and get the daily values values for sea ice extent & area, both poles.
You seem to be suggesting that the surface is warming quicker than the atmosphere. 😉
Are you saying the lapse rate has changed or something? 😉
The surface station series is mostly measured at urban heat islands and is sparse over large tracts of variable land. The so called “global surface temperature” is a highly biased fabrication, not fit for anything except propaganda.
The satellite record is far more likely to be a more correct estimate of the REALITY of global temperatures than that load of GIGO !!
From the Earth’s frame of reference, the Earth doesn’t rotate either. If you view either of them from the Sun they will both look like bodies with an orbit of about 365 days and both will appear to rotate on their axis.
Or ask it a different way, is there sunrise and sunset on the moon?
“From the Earth’s frame of reference, the Earth doesn’t rotate either.”
From the definition of “rotating on its own axis”, the Earth rotates on its axis, in ANY frame of reference.
“If you view either of them from the Sun they will both look like bodies with an orbit of about 365 days and both will appear to rotate on their axis.”
No! The Earth will appear to have an orbit around the Sun of about 365 days, but the Moon will appear to have an orbit around the Earth of about 27 days.
“Or ask it a different way, is there sunrise and sunset on the moon?”
Yes, there is sunrise and sunset, if you’re on the Moon. But, it takes about 27 days to see it all. (This causes the different phases of the Moon, as viewed from Earth. There is NO “Earthrise”, as the Moon does not rotate on its axis, relative to Earth.
I think that it is difficult to determine what is rotation of a body like the Earth around its axis and its orbit around the Sun, its orbit around the sun is equivalent to one extra rotation around its axis every year relative to an outside observer , it could be that rotation and orbit have to be seen as circular motion one round a fixed axis in space and the orbit round a moving axis in space.
It would be difficult, without an understanding of the relevant physics–orbital motions, Newton’s Laws of Motion, and gravity.
donald, the Moon is rotating around a fixed axis, and also orbiting around a fixed axis.
The animation here on the left shows the Moon both orbiting and rotating. The animation on the right shows the Moon orbiting but NOT rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA has the descriptions reversed.
Nothing new.
Weird — now that animation is suddenly gone.
Taken out of Wikipedia just this afternoon.
Did you remove it, Ger*an?
Anyway, here’s Google’s cache of the animation:
https://goo.gl/images/aq9Stf
I was right; the left one is orbiting+rotation. The right one is orbiting without rotation.
Nope, you’ve still got them reversed. The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting. It is “NOT rotating on its own axis”. That’s why Earth only sees one side of it.
You don’t understand the two motions. Just add that to your list of things to study, if you ever decide to study physics.
Wikipedia kept a version of the animation here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The animation on the left is certainly rotating — the black splotch on it faces in every direction as it goes around.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That animation on the right shows the Moon not rotating — its black splotch always faces the same direction.
David, your first link is working just fine. No need for conspiracy theories.
The animation is there again because someone re-edited the page again and put it back.
Here’s the pages history, showing two revisions today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tidal_locking&action=history
Theyre doing it just to mess with you, David…
JD,
Haven’t you had enough humiliation? Back for more embarrassment I see. LMAO. Every time you post this moon non-rotation nonsense, you get owned with your lack of physics and kinematic knowledge. Quite hilarious.
Nice to know that when I swing a weight around it is rotating about its axis. 😉
Interesting concept.
And no the moon IS NOT rotating about its axis because that axis is rotating about the Earth
at the same rate that the Moon is rotating about the Earth
Relative to its axis, the moon is not rotating.
If you had an arrow fixed at right angles at the pole of the moon, that arrow would always point to the same direction on the surface of the moon.
AndyG55 gets it. There’s little hope for DA and SGW.
Andy,
NASA and the rest of mainstream science disagrees with you:
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
The moon does rotate about its own axis.
Do this simple experiment. Take a green grape, pierce it with a round toothpick. Mark a red dot on one side of the grape. Sit at a table and pick an orbit point. Now orbit the grape around the center of orbit, keeping the red mark pointing towards the center of orbit. You have to slowly spin the toothpick between your fingers to keep the red mark always facing the center of orbit. The grape is rotating about its axis while making the orbit.
SGW says:“You have to slowly spin the toothpick between your fingers to keep the red mark always facing the center of orbit.”
SGW, that is because you are modeling orbiting. Your “model” requires a force. In a real situation, the force is supplied by gravity. So, you are “gravity”, in your “model”.
The Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis.
JD,
These are kinematic concepts, which is the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
Once again, you are way out of your league here.
Wrong again, SGW!
Orbiting motion requires force.
If you don’t know that, then all of your bluster and bluff fades into the sunset.
JD,
No. Not wrong again. Once again, kinematics does not concern itself with forces that cause the motion. Kinematics deals with the motion itself. You are not getting it as usual.
Incroyable!
I think that the point here is that while the moon does rotate around its axis that axis is not fixed in space and it would be the same if an object was traveling in a straight line because the speed of rotation of the object would slow down as the object accelerated.
donald, it would be difficult, without an understanding of the relevant physics–orbital motions, Newton’s Laws of Motion, and gravity.
Start with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
JDHuffman says:
From the definition of rotating on its own axis, the Earth rotates on its axis, in ANY frame of reference.
No. In a reference frame rotating at the same rate as the Earth with its axis of rotation in the same direction, the Earth is not rotating. Of course.
Reality, DA.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Again, no rebuttal. Just insults.
You insult when you have no rebuttal, know you have no rebuttal, but can’t admit you’re wrong.
DA, when you try to twist and spin reality, you insult yourself.
Quit whining. Learn to face reality.
Ger*an: See, you just did it again — insults instead of a rational rebuttal.
ibid.
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Rotate your body through 360 degrees.
Does your nose stay in place, with respect to your eyes?
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Face reality.
Is your head screwed on?
If a body is not rotating, does it have an axis?
We would have to first, find a body that is not rotating.
But seriously, you could draw any axis through the body you want.
You can imagine a line through a body, but it isn’t an axis if the body doesn’t rotate around that line. IOW, every axis is collinear with a line, but not all lines are collinear with an axis.
You skipped my first sentence!
First you have to find something that isn’t spinning.
Got any candidates?
There are mesons, but they don’t last too long.
I didn’t understand your first sentence. Now I know why.
Gordon, it what way did they sell out.
I’ve heard that before. I would like to know in what way did they see out.
The level of galactic cosmic rays is the highest since 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
You mean … it was higher during the last solar minimum?
What’s the difference between the maxima?
Dave, RSS is consistent with the lowest 5 to 10 percent of climate model predictions. Even they are considering the lack of warming unexpected and inconsistent with the mean warming scenario.
Hopefully my comment will attach as a reply.
It’s fluctuation, and still within the 2-sigma uncertainty band.
Two years ago it was right in the middle of the band.
AGW isn’t going to rise or fall based on a couple of years.
The Southeast Pacific is still cold.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.10.1.2018.gif
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
Not so fast, Ren. Predicted El Nino is arriving.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Nope
Ren. Very cool information about GCR. Thanks for sharing.
“NASA’s Parker Solar Probe is swinging by Venus on its unprecedented journey to the sun.
Launched in August, the spacecraft gets a gravity assist Wednesday as it passes within 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) of Venus. The flyby is the first of seven that will draw Parker ever closer to the sun.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-parker-solar-probe-venus.html#jCp
It seems there some uncertainly about how much gravity assist is gained by encounter with Venus tomorrow.
Generally speaking, the closer to planet, the more orbital energy can be gained or lost- Parker will losing it to Venus [the probe will increase Venus orbital velocity {by tiny amount}].
Or they say pass within 1500 miles. 1500 miles away is quite far
” These speed and distance estimates could change after Parker Solar Probe performs its Venus gravity assist on Oct. 3.”
https://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarprobe/
Or seem idea is to get within 1500 miles- and if they get closer they get more of gravity assist. And I guess we will know how close it got tomorrow. Back to first link:
“By the end of October, Parker will shatter the current record for close solar encounters, set by a NASA spacecraft in 1976 from 27 million miles (43 million kilometers) out. Parker will get within 15 million miles (25 million kilometers) of the sun’s surface in November. Twenty-four such orbits—dipping into the sun’s upper atmosphere, or corona—are planned over the next seven years. The gap will eventually shrink to 3.8 million miles (6 million kilometers).”
Thank you Dr Spencer for your report which is always informative.
I’ve also developed a reasonable skill at “troll post skipping” for which I thank your resident trolls.
David Guy-whatever…”Ive also developed a reasonable skill at troll post skipping for which I thank your resident trolls”.
You are a different kind of troll, the hit-and-run type. Such trolls stop by, make an inaccurate and myopic observation, then leave a nasty note.
Why don’t you stick around and engage in the conversations? I have never seen anything from you, either positive or negative.
You leave a thank you note for Roy, which is cool, but you cannot resist taking a general shot at the posters here.
One thing I have learned about the posters is that they are passionate about their participation. I have yet to see one poster who is trolling, in that they are not here to intentionally disrupt the blog. We refer to each other as trolls at times, but that’s par for the course on blogs.
The good news is cooling is the trend now for the next few years but will it continue?
It should not only continue but accelerate.
Salvatore never learns.
cor – cooling is the current trend but will it continue?
“cooling is the current trend”
When you use the word “trend” in this context you are in the statistical world and statistical rules apply.
There is no current cooling trend. Unless you make up your own statistical rules. Or, if you have no rules and just like to say stuff….
barry, in your world, with your statistical rules, are trends within trends allowed?
Yes, if those trends are statistically significant.
barry…”There is no current cooling trend”.
What do you call that 2 1/2 year negative trend from January 2016 till present?
You need to go back and relearn your statistical methods. You don’t apply a linear trend to a range of 39 years without examining the various context of the data. A linear trend from 1979 – 2018 means nothing in particular.
The 2 1/2 year negative trend above is recovery from an extreme EN. Does your statistical methods allow for such extreme anomalies? Or do you just normalize the data to see what you want to see?
For that period the null hypothesis (“no trend”) is not disproved, statistically.
Therefore no positive statement about a trend for that period can be made. At all.
That is both basic science and basic stats. How come you don’t know this stuff?
The problem here is that trend has a statistical definition, and you and Sal are either ignorant of it or uninterested in it.
When one day is a different temperature than the next that does not indicate a trend. When one year is a different temperature to the next, that does not indicate a trend. Rather, this is the normal fluctuation that occurs and is observed to occur. To use the word ‘trend’ for these short-term fluctuations is to render the word indistinguishable from ‘change.’
A “trend” arises when there is persistent change surpassing that which can be explained by normal variability.
barry…”The problem here is that trend has a statistical definition, and you and Sal are either ignorant of it or uninterested in it”.
You forgot the term ‘range’. You seem to be hung up on a range from 1979 – present whereas I have specified a range of January 2016 – present.
Are you trying to tell me I cannot apply a trend to that data that falls within the definition of a trend?
This is typically you, barry. When presented with fact that counters an argument you have presented you resort to obfuscation and legalese.
The issue is not that temps are cooler now than Jan 2016. The problem is that you use the word “trend” for any change at all. This renders the word indistinguishable from the word “change.”
There is no doubt that global temps are cooler now than 2016. And we all know why.
But when you use the word “trend”, you are in the statistical realm. We’re not talking fashion trends here – the term has special meaning WRT science and statistics.
So here is the statistically derived trend with uncertainty from January 2016.
-0.152 (+/-2.287) C/decade
Do you see the uncertainty? It’s 15 times larger than the trend.
A perceivable trend is defined as persistent change over time that is distinct from changes due to ordinary variability. That’s what statistical analysis can assess.
So for the period you are talking about there is a clear change in temperature from Jan 2016 to now. It is fluctuation. It is variability.
Does it indicate a trend? Impossible to say. Not enough data.
Unless you define the word “trend” in a non-scientific sense. In which case you are conversing in a different language to people taking a rigorous look at data.
barry…”For that period the null hypothesis (no trend) is not disproved, statistically”.
Hopefully you are not as stupid as you come across and that you’re just bring obtuse. The data plotted on the UAH graph from January 2016 till present shows a marked negative trend.
Use all the double-speak and misdirection you like, it is a negative trend. We are several tenths of a degree cooler today than we were in 2016.
I am not trying to pull a fast one. I am fully aware that the 2016 high is the apex of a strong EN. Still, we have been lingering around the average temperature of the hiatus now for several months.
The issue is not that temps are cooler now than Jan 2016. The problem is that you use the word “trend” for any change at all. This renders the word indistinguishable from the word “change.”
There is no doubt that global temps are cooler now than 2016. And we all know why.
But when you use the word “trend”, you are in the statistical realm. We’re not talking fashion trends here – the term has special meaning WRT science and statistics.
So here is the statistically derived trend with uncertainty from January 2016.
-0.152 (+/-2.287) C/decade
Do you see the uncertainty? It’s 15 times larger than the trend.
A perceivable trend is defined as persistent change over time that is distinct from changes due to ordinary variability. That’s what statistical analysis can assess.
So for the period you are talking about there is a clear change in temperature from Jan 2016 to now. It is fluctuation. It is variability.
Does it indicate a trend? Impossible to say. Not enough data.
Unless you define the word “trend” in a non-scientific, colloquial sense. In which case you are conversing in a different language to people taking a rigorous look at data.
Hey Mark Mannion,
Did your shell script strip away mentions of authors’ names that were written by other posters? So it was only users actually posting a post that were counted?
Yes, he searches html and includes a couple of control characters (“>).
I’m glad you’re back by the way.
I was reckoning on my output. 4 posts a day in the update threads doesn’t seem excessive.
Poor barry, still in denial that he is a troll.
Update for Salvatore:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
I have already talked about it Barry, but Barry it is just where it was and not making any progress to the up side’
I only mention that to give the full picture and I think this will be relatively short lived. Overall the climate is cooling not warming.
Winter is in the southern hemisphere. Ice extent in the Antarctic is growing.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00972/436azc0nrn68.png
Absolute sea ice extent is always growing in each hemisphere’s winter time, ren, just like absolute temperatures reach their maximum in the hemisphere’s summer time.
In my native language, we call your sentence a ‘lapalissade’.
The ice rises in Antarctica in October. Is it winter time in the southern hemisphere?
Descending sort of the absolute values in Mkm2 for Antarctica’s sea ice exent till Jun 18, from
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
2014 | 9 | 19.76
2013 | 9 | 19.39
2012 | 9 | 19.21
2006 | 9 | 19.09
2013 | 10 | 19.02
2014 | 10 | 19.00
2009 | 9 | 18.96
2004 | 9 | 18.92
2014 | 8 | 18.91
1998 | 9 | 18.90
2000 | 9 | 18.89
2007 | 9 | 18.86
1980 | 9 | 18.82
2005 | 9 | 18.80
2010 | 9 | 18.80
2011 | 9 | 18.74
2006 | 10 | 18.73
1985 | 9 | 18.70
1999 | 9 | 18.70
1998 | 10 | 18.66
2013 | 8 | 18.66
2010 | 10 | 18.65
1996 | 9 | 18.63
1994 | 9 | 18.61
2010 | 8 | 18.61
1981 | 9 | 18.60
1997 | 9 | 18.60
1983 | 9 | 18.59
2012 | 10 | 18.59
1980 | 10 | 18.57
1993 | 9 | 18.54
2007 | 10 | 18.51
2005 | 10 | 18.48
2004 | 10 | 18.46
2015 | 9 | 18.44
2015 | 10 | 18.41
1995 | 9 | 18.37
1988 | 10 | 18.36
1982 | 9 | 18.35
1999 | 10 | 18.35
1988 | 9 | 18.31
1991 | 9 | 18.31
2003 | 9 | 18.30
2009 | 10 | 18.30
1981 | 10 | 18.29
1987 | 9 | 18.25
2011 | 10 | 18.22
2000 | 8 | 18.21
1979 | 9 | 18.20
1985 | 10 | 18.20
September: 29 of 50
October: 17 of 50
August: 4 of 50
What is your point, ren?
ren: Antarctic sea ice is usually rising in October.
binny…”Descending sort of the absolute values in Mkm2 for Antarcticas sea ice exent till Jun 18, from….”
Yet another biased report from the algorithms of binny’s alarmist mind.
As usual, Robertson, you are the person trying to discredit instead of providing for real facts and useful contradiction.
But that you never and never have been able to.
You are no more than a gullible follower of nonsense pseudoskepticism a la E P Smith or Novak.
Bindidolina, please stop trolling.
binny…”You are no more than a gullible follower of nonsense pseudoskepticism a la E P Smith or Novak”.
I welcome any scientific studies from any source that make sense.
The difference between you and E.P.Smith (Chiefio) is that he meticulously backs his claims with an exhaustive supply of data straight from GHCN, NOAA, and GISS. And you cannot refute any of it because you are a lightweight compared to him.
Novak makes excellent points about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It is being misused in application to AGW. Not only that, modern climatologist have completely misinterpreted its meaning.
Physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, a groupie at realclimate, infers it can be used to add GHG back-radiation to incoming solar to super-warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar alone.
That is the source of the nonsense that the 2nd law can be satisfied by a mysterious positive net energy balance. It is a flagrant misinterpretation of S-B.
Stefan and Boltzmann made an error in presuming heat could be radiated through space directly. They had no idea that EM existed in those days other than the electric and magnetic fields of Faraday surrounding an electromagnetic.
Therefore, S-B gave the radiation units of w/m^2 and many modernists have not caught on yet. They still think EM and heat are one and the same, hence the confusion about back-radiation warming the surface.
Hey Ren,
Though October usually has decreases in Antarctic ice extent (about 75% on the daily record), growth does occur nearly 25% of the time. Not an unusual event, but will continue to watch.
Hello bilybob, nice to see you are here again.
A nice info about sea (ant)arctic ice extent is this:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/Ice/polview.html
If you are interested, we could continue our little discussion about warming before and after the 1970’s, inbetween I completed my ‘amateurish’ work on GHCN daily.
Hey Bindindon,
Interesting chart, prefer the traditional line graph it is easier to visualize the data for me.
Still come by from time to time, it the busy time of the year for me. Will probably be able to contribute more later in the month.
Take care,
” but Barry it is just where it was and not making any progress to the up side”
It’s warmer more recently.
You have been showing this chart and commenting that things are heading “in the right direction” when things were looking cooler left to right.
How come you’re not saying things are heading in the “wrong direction” when the chart shows the opposite profile – warmer left to right?
Great question.
barry…”How come youre not saying things are heading in the wrong direction when the chart shows the opposite profile warmer left to right?”
Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality. Since January 2016, the Earth’s average temperature has been on a steady but irregular negative trend.
That’s 2 1/2 years of negative trend, leaving us back at the hiatus level. If CO2 was having an effect, one might expect the current level to be significantly higher over 2 1/2 years with an overall positive trend since 1998.
That +ve trend since 1998 is still there due to the extreme EN of 2016 and we are waiting to see what develops. It looks to me, however, like CO2 is playing no part whatsoever, that the temperature and weather are being controlled by natural forces.
barry
We see here once again how Robertson’s firmware ‘works’:
“Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality. Since January 2016, the Earths average temperature has been on a steady but irregular negative trend.”
—
Well, the reality still is best shown by looking at numbers!
And because for Robertson, Earth’s temperature is exactly identical to what UAH publishes for the lower troposphere, we therefore will have a look at… UAH’s numbers (rev 6.0, évidemment).
Indeed, the linear estimate for January 2016 till August 2018 is, as a consequence of the huge El Niño 2015/16:
-1.92 ± 0.44 °C / decade
But… the linear estimate for January 1998 till August 2000 is, as a consequence of the huge El Niño 1997/98:
-2.41 ± 0.55 °C / decade
« Tel est pris qui croyait prendre », dira-t-on ‘chez nous’.
“Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality.”
Once again I am using precisely the metrics that Salvatore consistently uses, and once again you are overlooking that.
Too much to hope that you will be consistent with your criticism irrespective of the person posting. Otherwise you would have taken Salvatore to task for “looking at numbers and not at the reality.”
barry…”Its warmer more recently”.
Did you read Roy’s article above? This September was the coldest in 10 years.
This is the chart that Salvatore keeps posting and saying things about. He got excited a couple of months ago when it was showing cooler temps recently.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
So I am asking him what he thinks about this now that temps are going up. It’s his preferred source, not mine. And my interest is to see how consistent Sal is when data run counter to what he likes.
If you can’t follow the conversation, Gordon, may I suggest you start your own?
Huffy
Let’s team up and pretend we are a horse running around a track. I’ll be the horses head, you can be the horses ass.
When I’m facing North, you will be facing south. When I’m turning towards the northeast, you’ll be turning towards the southwest.
Somewhere between the two of us, there’s an imaginary, vertical line that’s not turning either way……neither towards the northeast or southwest. That’s called a fixed axis of rotation.
Silly Ms Snape! Never a clue, but always a comment.
There are two distinct motions, Snape. The horse is only doing ONE. If he stops in the track, you do not see any “rotating on its own axis”. If he were doing two motions, he could stop one and continue the other.
But, keep distorting reality, if it makes you fell smart.
Imagine a man (or horse) running along a rope in a straight line. But as he runs, he twists around, going through one complete cycle by the time he reaches the end of the rope.
The man/horse is clearly rotating.
Now imagine one end of the rope brought around to meet the beginning of the rope, to form a circle.
The manhorse now runs in a circle, but he also rotates, once per time around the circle.
That’s what the Moon is doing — orbiting and rotating at the same time, with the period of each the same.
DA, you would see the horse rotating from inside the track.
Learn to think for yourself. Learn to think, period!
No you wouldn’t, if the rotational period of the horse was the same as the rotational period of one loop around the track.
DA, if you had any cognitive skills at all, you could work this out on the floor of your apartment, with a sting and a pencil.
But, you don’t.
That’s one of the reasons you get so many laughs.
I can easily work it out in my head.
It’s no different than the left side of this animation:
https://goo.gl/images/aq9Stf
Uh, better try the string and pencil….
Using a string and pencil shows the Moon/horse rotating.
It’s no different than the left side of this animation:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
On the left Moon, the black splotch faces in all 360 deg directions are it goes around the Earth in its plain.
When an object in a plain faces in all of 360 degrees, it is rotating.
*plane
You’re still confused.
See if this explanation helps:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322859
DA….”I can easily work it out in my head.
Its no different than the left side of this animation:”
In that left image, If the Moon was turning a full 360 on it’s axis, with the Earth turning under it at 30 revolutions per month, we would be able to see every facet of every face of the Moon.
We can’t, all we see is one face.
Note in the image that the Moon is not turning on it’s axis. It’s being held by the fluid force of gravity, which allows the Earth to rotate under the Moon.
That dark spot on the Moon should turn through 360 wrt to the Moon’s axis, and it’s not.
No, we don’t see all sides of the rotating Moon, BECAUSE IT’S TIDALLY LOCKED. The rotational periods are equal.
Position yourself any other place but the Earth’s surface. From there, the Moon will be seen as rotating.
Ger*an – You’ve given that link already. You misinterpreted the situation there.
If an object faces through all 360 degrees in turn, is it rotating?
Orbital motion, DA.
Study orbital motion.
JD and Gordon,
Don’t worry if you don’t get the moon rotation stuff. NASA scientists and scientists in general all over the world have got it covered so you don’t have to.
SGW, NASA has been on a 40-year downslide. Anything to do with REAL science is about 5th or 6th on the list. First priority is funding. Then, all of the political correctness!
The great engineers from the Glory days have long retired. With any money they don’t waste, they spend on contractors.
But, worship them if you must.
Ha! What a nice circus!
*
1. JDHuffman says:
October 3, 2018 at 11:55 AM
DA, you would see the horse rotating from inside the track.
Learn to think for yourself. Learn to think, period!
*
2. Gordon Robertson says:
October 3, 2018 at 5:40 PM
In that left image, If the Moon was turning a full 360 on its axis, with the Earth turning under it at 30 revolutions per month, we would be able to see every facet of every face of the Moon.
*
3. SkepticGoneWild says:
October 3, 2018 at 6:51 PM
JD and Gordon,
Dont worry if you dont get the moon rotation stuff. NASA scientists and scientists in general all over the world have got it covered so you dont have to.
*
Hmmmmmh! I am very, very impressed by all these pseudo-skeptics who offend anyone having an opinion of GHE differing from theirs, but suddenly contradict each other about the spin of the Moon’s axis.
I remember similar discussions between ex(c)ited ge*r*an and other people. In German we say: “The insults flew deep”.
*
Recently, senior commenter galloping camel alias Peter Morcombe gave us a link to an interesting paper:
Lunar equatorial surface temperatures and regolith properties from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
Ashwin R. Vasavada & al. (2012)
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
The introduction begins in its very first paragraph with
The Moon experiences extremes in surface temperature
due to ITS SLOW ROTATION, lack of atmosphere, and the
near-ubiquitous presence of a highly insulating regolith
layer.
*
Na dann streitet Euch mal ordentlich weiter, Jungs!
Bindidolina, please stop trolling.
Your wagon example is incorrect.
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Now rotation by one turn. You faced in all 360 degrees.
Similarly, the Moon or horse or wagon faces in all 360 degrees in its motion. Because it’s rotating.
TWO motions, DA.
Just try to fully understand one at a time. Then work your way up to the big time.
Who knows, maybe 10, 15, 20 years, you will get it?
Then we can work on thermodynamics….
Two separate motions.
You seem to think that an object that faces through 360 degrees is not rotating.
That’s what happens with the child’s wagon. The motion is called “orbiting”. It’s what the Moon is doing.
Poor JD, always behind the curve.
An orbit is just a path. “Orbiting” does not tell us the status of the object as far as its rotation. The orbiting object could be exhibiting pure translational motion (facing one direction throughout its orbit), or the orbiting object could be rotating on its own axis.
Our brilliant physicist JD informs us the moon is orbiting. Wow! Please publish this amazing discovery in a physics journal, Einstein. Be sure to include the quote, “Its what the Moon is doing.”.
Hilarious!
DA…”The man/horse is clearly rotating”.
The original claim was that the Moon is not turning about its own axis. The horse’s axis would be it’s centre of gravity and it is clearly not turning about it’s centre of gravity.
In essence, the horse is traveling in a series of short tangential lines. If there was no friction to enable the horse to gradually turn from that tangential line to the next one….if it was on ice….the horse would slide off the track on that straight line.
As it slide off, it might then begin spinning around its centre of gravity.
The horse *is* rotating about its axis — first it runs north (say), then west, then south, then east, then north again. Through all 360 degrees of the compass.
Like Ger*an, you seem to think something that faces through all 360 degrees is not rotating.
It’s certainly rotating with respect to all other points in the Universe except the surface of the Earth. Because it’s rotating.
DA, obviously you do not understand orbital motion. An orbiting object, if it is NOT “rotating on its own axis, will appear to rotate on its own axis, to an observer outside the orbit. This is what happens with a race horse runs a race track. The horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, to someone in the stands. But the REALITY is the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Say I am on the Goodyear blimp with a camera focused on the lead horse in the Kentucky Derby, zoomed in so you can only see the horse and jockey in the field of view.
What would you see.
I went to the Carousel and picked a horse to ride, he looked like a good one and away I did ride. Now relative to the Carousel, the horse is stationary, but I have a movie camera and a replay sure looks like something is spinning.
Maybe the Carousel is spinning and so is the horse I am riding on it, which is making the same kind of orbit as a horse on a racetrack.
And is also spinning.
How about trying to make some sense, bob?
I don’t think they have playgrounds like when I was a kid, but if you got on a merry go round and faced the center and was spun round and round for a while.
Now I think this motion is a fair representation of the earth moon system with you as the moon orbiting the center of the merry go round.
Then you get off, and you are dizzy, why?
Because you were spinning, that’s why.
I’m so dizzy my head is spinning like a whirlpool it never ends
Waiter, more wine at bob’s table.
And now you want to date me.
Waiter, shut off the wine to bob’s table, quick!
Here is what Phil Plait otherwise known as the owner of the Bad Astronomy blog has to say
“Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon does not appear to rotate. This is because from an outside frame of reference, the Moon rotates once for every time it goes around the Earth. So from our vantage point, the Moon is naturally divided into two halves: the hemisphere we always see, called the nearside, and the hemisphere we do not see, the farside. The farside has only been seen by probes or astronauts that have actually orbited (or at least passed by) the Moon.”
He has a PhD in Astronomy, so he is correct and you are wrong.
Or there is an Alanis Morissette quote wine me dine me ****** me.
To get the truth you need to find the appropriate reference point or a place to stand with your lever.
bob, you don’t have to use some obscure blogger to support your pseudoscience. NASA and many universities have webpages devoted to it. It is well-established pseudoscience.
That’s the point. Most people cannot think for themselves. It’s not that hard to figure out, but many people have lost the ability to reason.
Upthread, I presented this simple explanation to someone. He was unable to reason it out. See if you can:
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis” It is securely attached to the yardstick.!
So I have attached the tennis ball to the yardstick and am turning it around and noticing that the face on the tennis ball Wilson 1 allways faces me, not Penn 1 or those Dunlop 1 rocks, but my daughter is perched on a ladder and grabs ahold of the tennis ball as it revolves around me.
And the yardstick snaps into two pieces.
Why?
Another experiment you can try.
Buy a little toy train with a circular track, such that the toy train goes around the track in a circular path.
Glue a dowel rod to the train and push an apple on to the dowel rod.
Now when the toy train goes around the track the apple alway faces the same half towards the center, draw a face on it if you must.
Then grab the apple and hold it as it goes around the track, it will twist relative to the dowel rod proving with out a doubt that the apple is rotating.
Another fine specimen!
Rock collecting is so much fun….
Yes, smart as a rock and quick as a tree.
Next you will be telling us the moon landing was a hoax.
Or would it be Bigfoot or the Aquatic Ape?
The Earth is flat, maybe?
Vaccinations?
You don’t like facts, do you?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderating Team
You are not really an authorized moderator of this blog, are you?
You are just another of the posters here lacking in a basic science education.
The question of whether the moon rotates or not is basic 8th grade science.
So, basically a 12 year old can come to the right answer that a couple or more adults are having trouble with.
“But, the tennis ball can NOT rotate on its own axis It is securely attached to the yardstick.!”
This is where you and Gordon have a mental block. It does not matter if you have a yardstick attached to the tennis ball. The ball is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis for every one revolution of the yardstick. It is being forced to make the turn. You are looking at the wrong reference frame.
If the ball was not rotating on its axis, i.e. exhibiting pure translational motion, it would snap off the yardstick.
Like I said, us experts have this covered. You don’t have to worry about it if you don’t get it.
You spouted this garbage way back in February, and are still spouting the same nonsense. Pointless to continue.
Recently reactivated GHE Defense Team avatar “bobdroege”, please stop trolling.
SGW says: “It does not matter if you have a yardstick attached to the tennis ball. The ball is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis for every one revolution of the yardstick.”
This is so amazing! SGW understands that the tennis ball is securely attached to the end of the yardstick. It can NOT move. But, in the next sentence, he believes the tennis ball “is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis”!
And, SGW is not alone. There’s no way to reason with such illogical, uneducated people.
“This is so amazing! SGW understands that the tennis ball is securely attached to the end of the yardstick.”
Clearly the person holding the yardstick is rotating, yes?
The yardstick is acting just like the spoke on a wagon wheel as the wheel rotates. Yes? The person is like the hub of the wagon wheel, yes?
So I think you agree that the person is rotating, that the hub on the wagon wheel is rotating, and that the wagon wheel is rotating. But you seem to think that a spoke on the wagon wheel is NOT rotating.
The spoke is part of the wheel that is rotating, but the spoke is not rotating???
I think it would help everyone to know, JD, how you DEFINE rotation? How do you define it, mathematically in such a way that an object (wheel) can rotate and some parts of it DO rotate but other parts DO NOT?
(No need to respond here. Nate is not attempting to alter reality. He’s just acknowledging his confusion about it.)
DA…”Imagine a man (or horse) running along a rope in a straight line. But as he runs, he twists around, going through one complete cycle by the time he reaches the end of the rope”.
How the heck does he do that?
a)Does he have a saddle with a swivel so he can spin around HIS axis?
b)Is the horse on roller skates so the rider can pull him around in a circle as he follows the straight rope? The horse would have to deftly lift his skates so as not to become entangled in the rope.
c)does he come to the end of the rope and turn the horse 180 degrees?
The only way the horse could rotate about his own axis is by being on a roundabout, or carousel, that was rotating as the carousel ran on a track around the course.
From the lunar surface, Earth is always in same portion of the sky and the Earth goes sunlit phases [as Moon does as seen from Earth].
If near north pole of Moon, Earth will due south in sky and near south pole of moon, Earth will always be due north. If Earth is not in the sky, you are on the far side of the Moon [and Earth from that region of the Moon will never be in the sky].
If on nearside of Moon, if travel in direction of Earth, evenually you reach point where Moon is directly overhead and you would then be at the equator of the Moon.
reach point where Moon…
Should be: reach point where Earth is directly overhead…
snape…”When Im facing North, you will be facing south. When Im turning towards the northeast, youll be turning towards the southwest.
Somewhere between the two of us, theres an imaginary, vertical line….”
We are not talking about imaginary axes, we are talking about an axis through the Moon’s body about which the Moon is allegedly rotating, with angular momentum.
In the Earth-Moon system there is such an axis, called a barycentre. The Moon tries to pull the Earth out of orbit and the Earth tries to pull the Moon out of orbit. Both bodies are rotating around that axis which is located between the Earth’s axis and its surface but closer to the axis.
If you want to created something like a barycentre then you have left the initial premise that the Moon is not turning around an axis through the Moon.
The first major snowstorm in the Rocky Mountains is approaching.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/ea9cd8c/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F08%2Fbb%2Fd0b5b49742c2902044d9825ad80a%2Fstatic-us-next-week.jpeg
40 years means it start at the end of a long cooling period.
Good point actually, there was a thirty year decline ending in the mid seventies.
Here’s the long term CO2 prediction in bold:
http://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Not much of a decline.
The 30-yr trend ending in June 1975 (which I’ll take as the mid-point of the ’70s) was +0.03 C/decade, using GISS data.
I meant a 1998 type decline, that’s when you put your ruler on a peak y-value and see how far it takes you along the x-axis.
It didn’t:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
Seriously? This is still going on???
Imagine a large platform that can rotate — like this.
http://www.bspengineeringsas.it/contents/14/04/plugin_gallery_02/20170202-144427.jpg
Imagine putting a smaller platform like this on top out near the edge:
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~jmil/physics/demos/misc/img/rotating_platform_metal2.jpg
Assume no friction in the bearings. Assume for the sake of discussion that initially the small platform is near the north edge of the larger platform. Assume the stripe on the smaller platform is aligned north-south.
Initially both are stationary. Then the bottom platform starts to rotate. The top platform will move in a large circle (it will ‘orbit’ the center of the large platform; it will ‘revolve’). But the line on the smaller platform will continue to point N-S. The top platform will not rotate on its axis. No torque has been applied to give it angular momentum.
If you want the line on the top platform to always point toward the center (like the moon) you will have to give the top platform a spin until it is rotating at the same rate as the bottom platform.
Conversely suppose the top and bottom platforms are rotating at the same rate (say 6 RPM for both) so that the line stays pointed toward the center. If the bottom platform is stopped, the top platform will continue to spin at 6 RPM.
Yes, my young padawan, there are to separate motions. There is both rotation and revolution.
[ That was in reference to the inane discussions about the moon upthread. ]
Don’t worry, I almost have JDH/Ger*an cornered.
DA, remember our talk about “reality”?
tim…”Yes, my young padawan, there are to separate motions. There is both rotation and revolution”.
You arrived at the correct conclusion initially then arrived at the wrong conclusion in your summary.
If the Moon is tidally-locked, there is rotation…but it’s the Earth’s rotation only. Due to the fluid nature of gravity, the Earth can turn under the Moon while maintaining a locking force on it. The Moon remains stationary wrt it’s own axis.
Yes…the Moon revolves around the Earth but it has no angular momentum because it is locked with one face permanently facing the Earth.
The logic in the NASA statement is missing. While the Moon is allegedly turning once per month, the Earth rotates 30 times. Surely someone would have a view of the back side of the Moon.
The mistake in the NASA statement is obvious. They seem to claim that the same side of the Earth is looking at the same side of the Moon, which is nonsense. If the Moon was rotating on its axis, we would be able to see every part of the Moon due to our 30:1 rotational advantage.
Gordon Robertson says:
If the Moon is tidally-locked, there is rotationbut its the Earths rotation only.
No.
Look at this animation, on the left side:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Focus only on the Moon, and look at its central axis. IGNORE THE EARTH.
Do you see the dark splotch on the Moon rotating around the Moon’s central axis?
That’s rotation. Of the Moon.
NO DA, that is “orbiting”. There is NO “rotating on its own axis”, in the left graphic.
Don’t you have some new pseudoscience to try? You’ve linked to that same pathetic graphic about 10 times!
Just Dumb,
For the 1000th time. An “orbit” is just a path. “Orbiting” does not tell us any information as to whether the object orbiting is rotating on its axis or not.
In DA’s graphic, the moon on the right is exhibiting pure translational motion throughout its orbit. In the graphic on the left, the moon’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path while the moon rotates about it’s center of mass, all per the standard kinematic definitions which govern general plane motion of rigid bodies.
Now time for your nappy, JD.
SGW, for the 1001st time, pure orbital motion is translational. Pure orbital motion involves no “rotating on its own axis”.
Dear Stupid,
Orbital motion means some object is following an orbital path. That’s it, you idiot. Orbiting says nothing about the state of the object in orbit, whether is is exhibiting pure translation or rotating on its axis.
You cannot even get the definition of “orbiting” correct. How can you even function in life being so dumb?
SGW, orbital motion is translational. Even if the object is also rotating on its own axis, the orbiting motion remains. There are two different motions.
Also, don’t overlook this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323246
Just look at the Moon, ignore the Earth.
It’s rotating.
Nope.
skeptic…”For the 1000th time. An orbit is just a path”.
You have left a lot out. It is a path but a special kind of path. In the context of which we are discussing the Moon, an orbit is a gravity-induced path which can produce a permanent elliptical or circular orbit around a mass, or a temporary parabolic or hyperbolic orbit as a mass veers past another mass.
Remaining in that context, the rotation of the Moon implies an angular momentum around an axis internal to the Moon’s body. Since the Moon is tidally-locked, with th same face always pointed to the Earth, it is obviously not turning on an interior axis.
DA…”Focus only on the Moon, and look at its central axis. IGNORE THE EARTH.
Do you see the dark splotch on the Moon rotating around the Moons central axis?”
Yes, I have watched the dark splotch many time.
Imagine the Earth as turning at the same rate as the Moon is orbiting, once a month. If you are in Portland, Oregon and that dark splotch was facing you, you’d see it every night. You might as well drive a large stake through the centre of the Earth out through the centre of the Moon.
That would stop the Moon from turning and keep the dark splotch always facing the Earth. It would appear from space exactly as in the left gif, yet the Moon would not be turning on it’s own axis because the stake would not allow it to turn.
BTW…this wiki article is wrong. In the gif on the right, the Moon is not tidally-locked. Tidal locking means the force of gravity from the Earth is holding the Moon in place by the surface facing us. There is a force holding the Moon in place in the same manner a stake through the Earth and the Moon would hold it in place.
If a humungous chunk of space debris struck the Moon with enough energy to overcome the tidal locking, and caused it to turn around an axis with the dark splotch facing us, we would get different facets of the Moon every time we saw it.
The notion that the Moon has an orbital period so slow that it presents the same face to us every night is bs.
Look at this one. The ‘a’ vector represents a tidal locking vector. If the Moon was turning on its axis, that vector combo of ‘a’ and ‘v’ would rotate around it. It’s plain that the ‘a’ vector is tied in place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
“The notion that the Moon has an orbital period so slow that it presents the same face to us every night is bs”
Go howl at NASA Gordon.
In your graphic, the moon has rotated 360 degrees on its axis for each orbit. If it did not rotate, it would be exhibiting pure translational motion, and all sides would be visible from an observer on the earth.
SGW, you keep getting confused about “translational motion”. The Moon’s motion is translational. It appears to turn because of the resultant forces. It’s orbit is somewhat circular, duh!
The simplest model is pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle (orbit). In one complete lap, to an observer outside the orbit, the wagon appears to “rotate on its own axis”. But, it is only being pulled around its orbit.
I know its hard to think for yourself, but the rewards are worth the effort.
You’ll thank me later….
JD,
You are the stupidest person on this planet. I gave you MULTIPLE references regarding translation. An object translating does NOT change is orientation. It always faces the same direction, It just changes position.
Now go away you ignorant troll. You obviously do not have the mental capabliity to understand simple kinematics.
skeptic….”In your graphic, the moon has rotated 360 degrees on its axis for each orbit. If it did not rotate, it would be exhibiting pure translational motion, and all sides would be visible from an observer on the earth”.
Rotation about an axis requires angular momentum about the axis. In that case, people on Earth could see all aspects of the Moon’s surface through 360 degrees, but they can’t.
What you are talking about is a rotational translation of axes taking place while one axis is attached to a turning body. In effect, you can call that a rotation of axis wrt the Moon but that is not the initial premise, which was that the Moon is not turning on it’s axis.
If you draw a coordinate axis trough the Moon on the left gif, and attach one end to the Earth to represent tidal locking, the Moon will rotate once as it orbits the Earth, but not wrt it’s own axis.
However, that is a purely technical argument to get around the original premise that the Moon is not turning on its axis. The black spot on the Moon in the left gif remains in the same spot wrt the Earth therefore it is impossible for the Moon to turn on it’s own axis.
[“If you draw a coordinate axis trough the Moon on the left gif, and attach one end to the Earth to represent tidal locking, the Moon will rotate once as it orbits the Earth, but not wrt its own axis.”]
Wrong. The moon’s rotation about its own axis can be clearly seen if you place a north arrow through the origin of the coordinate system. You will observe the moon spinning around the north arrow.
[“The black spot on the Moon in the left gif remains in the same spot wrt the Earth therefore it is impossible for the Moon to turn on its own axis.”]
Wrong. Completely backwards. The black spot remains in the same spot wrt the earth because the moon constantly rotates so the black spot DOES point towards earth. Get some glasses. The gif on the left clearly shows the moon rotating about its axis. You have everything backwards. You don’t accept the definition of translation either, just as JD.
In the gif on the right, that moon is exhibiting pure translational motion per the strict kinematic definition. That moon just changes its position when orbiting. If you place an arrow pointing north through that moon, that arrow remains pointing in the same direction throughout the orbit, which is the definition of translational motion:
“Translation: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”
[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Gordon, you seem deeply confused. The larger platform does not represent the earth! The earth does not “turn under the Moon” (in real life or in this analogy).
The earth would be represented by a second small platform sitting at the center of the larger platform. This ‘earth platform’ could rotate at 0 RPM or 1 RPM or 6 RPM or 30 RPM and never see the back of the ‘moon platform’ (assuming the moon platform indeed rotates at the same rate it revolves).
No Tim, you’ve got yourself so confused with all your rotating platforms that don’t rotate. You can’t even model “orbiting” motion. A simple child’s wagon pulled in a large circle correctly models “orbiting”.
Learn some physics.
The moon has phases, it goes from a completely illuminated full moon to a completely dark new moon.
So it is spinning relative to the sun.
Therefore it is rotating on its axis.
If it wasn’t spinning we would be able to see the whole surface of the moon, not just the half we do see.
Now I will have to listen to some Floyd “Dark Side of the Moon”
How many science subjects can you flunk on one blog?
bob, the orbit of the Moon exposes all sides to the Sun. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
That’s why we only see one side from Earth.
Nope JD,
The fact that the Moon is rotating on its axis is what exposes all of its sides to the Sun.
Keep on holding on to being wrong with the Kung-Fu death grip.
I admire your stubbornness but not your critical thinking skills.
Go buy an introductory astronomy text and send me the bill.
Just your me your credit card info–much faster!
2493 0987 2539 2465 exp 08 34 secret code 454
VISA, or MC?
bob…”The fact that the Moon is rotating on its axis is what exposes all of its sides to the Sun”.
This is about your lack of comprehension. The initial premise posed was not a rotation wrt the Sun but a rotation wrt the Moon’s axis.
The Sun sees all sides because the Earth is turning with the Moon tidally-locked, however, the Moon is not turning on its axis. If it was, it could not be tidally-locked, then observers from Earth could also see all sides of the Moon.
American Express, never leave home without it.
Gordon, the moon is of course rotating with respect to its own axis, that’s why it turns and exposes all of its surface to the sun.
If it wasn’t spinning it couldn’t do that.
bobd…”So it is spinning relative to the sun.
Therefore it is rotating on its axis”.
Not so. The Moon is being held with one face to a rotating body as it orbits the body. That’s why the Sun sees a different perspective.
The Moon is not spinning, it is being held with one face to the Earth. As it orbits the Earth with the same face pointed to the Earth, the Sun sees different aspects of the Moon’s surface but not because the Moon is turning around its own axis.
tim…”The earth does not turn under the Moon (in real life or in this analogy)”.
In one month, the Moon orbits the Earth once. In the same time period, the Earth turns 30 times. If you want to be more concise we can agree that the Earth is turning within the orbit of the Moon.
If the Moon was rotating on its axis, just once in that 30 days, we’d be able to see every surface on the Moon around it’s entire circumference.
Wrong again, Tim.
Your mistake is not correctly modeling the orbital motion. You have unnecessary complicated the issue to help with your spin. (It’s amazing how pseudoscience has to always go to some “ideal” device, like frictionless bearings, or black bodies.)
The simple example of pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle is “orbiting”. There is NO “rotating on its own axis”. The wagon is orbiting, just as is the Moon.
The simple action of orbiting APPEARS as “rotating on its own axis”, but it is an illusion. To test, just stop pulling the wagon. The ONE action stops, and there is not other motion.
It’s amazing how hard it is for people to think for themselves.
JD, I think I said this once before. You are welcome to create and promote your own definition of “orbit” relative to various rates of rotation and revolution. With your definition, neither the moon nor the wagon need to ‘rotate’ to keep the same side facing inward.
Just don’t expect others to accept your definition. Your simplistic definition has some visceral appeal to be sure. But ultimately it is much less useful than the way that NASA (along with all of physics and all of engineering) chooses to define ‘orbit”. It is much more useful to say the moon both rotates and revolves.
Tim, how is it “useful” to misrepresent reality?
tim…”But ultimately it is much less useful than the way that NASA (along with all of physics and all of engineering) chooses to define orbit. It is much more useful to say the moon both rotates and revolves”.
I studied the related physics in engineering and you are wrong, JD is right.
It’s not at all useful to claim the Moon rotates about its axis when it doesn’t. On this page on orbital mechanics, you can clearly see that the Moon is not rotating about it’s axis. If it was the acceleration and velocity vectors would be rotating through 360 degrees as the Moon orbited the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
Of course, those vectors would apply if the Moon was rotating about its axis, due to the fluid nature of gravitational force. However, we know the Moon is tidally-locked and that would be represented by the acceleration vector as in the gif.
Gordon, this Moon/axis issue is a great example of what pseudoscience has done to people’s ability to think for themselves. It really doesn’t take much knowledge of physics to figure it out, but people are intimidated by those magic 4 letters–N, A, S, and A!
It’s the Moon, so NASA must know, right?
That was the “old” NASA. All this NASA knows is how to wangle for funding.
” studied the related physics in engineering and you are wrong, JD is right.”
Gordon, just go back to the university where you learned physics and ask ANY professor of physics or engineering. All will agree that the moon rotates. ; none will agree with you.
***************************************
One more simple demo.
1) put a quarter on a tabletop.
2) put a penny a few inches away on the tabletop.
3) put your finger on the penny
4) move the penny in a circle clockwise around the quarter.
The penny is
a) rotating clockwise on its own axis.
b) rotating anticlockwise on its own axis.
c) not rotating on its own axis.
Tim, it depends on the force you apply with your finger. You still don’t get it.
Study the link Gordon provided above on “Orbital mechanics”.
And your point about asking a “university” professor is a non-starter. The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood physics would be about a one in 10 chance!
“And your point about asking a university professor is a non-starter. The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood physics would be about a one in 10 chance!”
Yeah, and “The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood my Made Up Physics would be about a one in 10 chance!”
and “The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood the Flat Earth would be about a one in 10 chance!”
and “”The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood the Sasquatch would be about a one in 10 chance!”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Looking at your gif, the acceleration vector is clearly rotating.
And the wiki page on orbital mechanics is not discussion rotation.
discussing rotation
JDHuffman and Gordon,
The link to “orbital mechanics” explains only why the moon doesn’t fly off to space or fall to Earth. It doesn’t take into account that the Earth is rotating 27 or so times during one cycle of the moon’s orbit. For each rotation of the earth, the moon moves 1/27 of its orbital cycle. To keep its near side facing Earth it has to rotate once every 27 days or so. This is called synchronous rotation caused by tidal locking as people have been trying to explain to you.
JD, the moon is not tethered to the Earth like a tennis ball on a yardstick or the nose on your face. You do discredit yourself as knowledgeable on any other subject by continuing to argue the moon doesn’t rotate. Look up “synchronous rotation” and admit you were mistaken.
Gordon, I would do the same if I were you.
Chic, like everyone else, you are just regurgitating the “institutionalized pseudoscience”. There is NO “synchronous rotation”. It’s an illusion.
The link to “orbital mechanics” explains the forces on a body in orbit. It is clear that such forces do NOT cause rotation about its own axis.
Do your homework, and think for yourself.
Thinking for myself. Wow, what a concept! /sarc off.
Picture a carousel (at a good distance from either pole) and imagine yourself walking around it while continuing to face north. Imagine you are using a compass to make sure you don’t rotate off course. Anyone on the carousel will see all sides of you as long as the carousel is rotating at least as fast as you are orbiting. Now walk around the carousel keeping one side facing the carousel. Your compass will go through 360 degrees and return to due north as you complete one orbit. If you still think you haven’t rotated, imagine the carousel gone and keep orbiting around the axis that the carousel was rotating around. Keep your left side toward the axis and continue orbiting closer and closer to the axis. When you get to the axis, notice that you are rotating on it.
Chic, there are two different motions involved, “orbiting”, and “rotating on its own axis”.
If you walk around a tree, that is a model of “orbiting”. You were NOT rotating around your center of gravity. You were walking in a circle.
Most of the folks that are having trouble with this cannot understand the basic motions.
And many don’t want to go against the “institutionalized pseudoscience”.
That’s why the issue is so fascinating. It parallels with the IPCC/AGW nonsense, as well as other pseudoscience.
“If you walk around a tree, that is a model of “orbiting”. You were NOT rotating around your center of gravity. You were walking in a circle.”
I can see from this response that it is you not understanding the basic motions.
As I tried to point out with my carousel example, there are two ways to walk around a tree. You can walk around with the same arm facing the tree at all times or you can walk around awkwardly, but without rotating, by remaining oriented in one direction. The moon doesn’t do the latter, because if it did we would see its dark side as often as the near side. We see only the near side of the moon, because the moon is slowly rotating once each orbit just like walking once around the tree.
You do believe in a moon landing, don’t you?
Chic, you see, but you don’t see.
Walking around the tree, same arm always facing the tree, is “orbiting”, as I indicated. That is the motion of the Moon.
You seem to understand that simple motion, but cannot accept it.
Just Dumb does not even know what “orbiting” means. LMAO.
Definition of “orbit”:
“The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body.”
It’s just the path, you moron. “Orbiting” means some object is following an orbital path. “Orbiting” supplies no information on whether the object exhibits pure translation while orbiting, or whether is rotates on its axis while orbiting.
You cannot even get the simple basics.
SGW, you must believe words like “dumb” and “moron” will make up for your lack of knowledge of physics.
How’s that working?
tim…”Just dont expect others to accept your definition”.
JD is using the correct definition of orbit for this context. This is an orbit induced by a gravitational force which draws the Moon to the Earth. The Moon’s angular momentum keep it in orbit with the orbit being the resultant between gravitational acceleration and the Moon’s angular momentum.
The child on the wagon is a reasobale example of the situation absent a centripetal acceleration with the momentum being supplied directly by the force from the person puling the wagon.
However, as JD pointed out, stop the wagon and see if it is turning in circles.
As you pointed out, the same side always points in. Furthermore, the wagon is not rotating about a centre of gravity. Same with the Moon.
You and others are getting far too carried away with technical arguments and abstractions.
Stick to the original premise, that the Moon is not turning on its axis.
Hammer throw illustrates object rotating on its axis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWmpwiHCFaM
Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis. But when the guy releases the cable, the hammer (or ball) spins around because it was spinning on its own axis before being released.
Very creative, SGW. But your physics is wrong, as usual. The tether is being pulled by the ball, so it has to contend with the energy at release.
In fact, the hammer throw is a perfect example that orbital motion is NOT capable of producing “rotating on its own axis”.
More examples to prove me right, please.
Pointless to respond to your rubbish.
SGW, don’t forget:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323246
skeptic…”Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis”.
This represent a lever action where the thrower imparts moments to the ball due to leverage from the handle or chain.
Why don’t you answer the initial question? Is the Moon rotating about a central axis while one side is tidally locked to the Earth’s surface? If so, how can it rotate with an angular momentum if one side is tidally-locked?
Gordon,
You cannot transmit moments down a chain or cable. Sheesh. Ever try jacking up a car using a chain or cable as the lever arm? And you claim to have taken engineering courses? Between the handle and the cable there is a metal loop as well. So there is no way moments can be transmitted down the cable.
If this guy was throwing the hammer in outer space, the ball would keep rotating until some equal and opposite inertial force reduced or stopped the rotation. Newtons law.
If someone switched off gravity, the Moon would continue in a straight line, still “not rotating on its own axis”.
“If someone switched off gravity, the Moon would continue in a straight line, still ‘not rotating on its own axis’.”
Thinking about that carefully is worthwhile, JD. How do you know that?
As has been mentioned many times (and I think you agreed?), someone standing on the North pole of the moon sees the stars circling around over 27 days.
So they should conclude that either the stars or the moon is spinning.
Now if gravity were turned off, and the moon continued in a straight line path, what would the person see?
The stars would suddenly stop going around? You would be saying that either the Moon or the stars have suddenly stopped spinning. But that would cause a BIG PROBLEM for conserving angular momentum.
Nate still can not understand the two basic motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
In a lunar day, the stars would appear to rotate, as viewed from the Moon. That APPARENT movement is due to the Moon’s orbital path. The Moon does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
That’s why, if gravity were turned off, the Moon would travel off in only translation motion. That’s the only motion it has.
(Nate is an anonymous super-clown, that adds no value to a discussion. I now have a policy of ignoring such behavior. I only respond when he tries to alter reality, as here.)
But then, that would cause a BIG PROBLEM for conserving angular momentum.
Just as, if you are holding a long pole with some weight out horizontally, and you try to spin. You will find that the pole will initially resist that motion. It will require torque to get it going.
Same thing if you now stop spinning, the pole will resist stopping its rotation. Its got angular momentum.
Now while spinning with the pole, let it go. Does it stop its rotation as it flies through the air?
No it won’t, because of its angular momentum.
But this is another idea from mainstream science, like reference frames, or rigid body dynamics, or astronomy. So you will likely dismiss it.
Nate, don’t try to act nice, just so you can get me to respond. Like Norman, you have NO credibility. If I spend time, trying to explain, you will just end up misrepresenting my words and making false accusations. You’ve done it too many times.
Before I will waste anytime with you, on this subject, you must admit that a horse running an oval track is NOT rotating on its own axis.
If you cannot embrace that reality, then you’re not worth responding to.
JD,
Lets face it, it’s hard to rebut mainstream physics. Easier just to blame it on the messenger.
Let’s face REALITY, Nate, not “it”.
The reality is that you cannot admit the horse is not rotating on it axis. You can’t admit it because you know it would squash your pseudoscience.
Reality ALWAYS squashes pseudoscience.
JD…”Nate still can not understand the two basic motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis””.
All the alarmists have this problem, the inability to see issues clearly. When you corner them with absolute evidence, like the times I have cornered Barry with direct evidence from NOAA and the IPCC, they come back with obfuscations and red herring arguments.
Not one alarmist can see the obvious, that a tidally-locked Moon cannot turn on it’s own axis. They are using obfuscations related to imaginary axes elsewhere. That’s what they do with their AGW claims as well.
skeptic…”You cannot transmit moments down a chain or cable. Sheesh. Ever try jacking up a car using a chain or cable as the lever arm? ”
If you have a cable or chain of significant mass attached to a ball of significant weight, and you swing it around your head and release it, the mass of the cable or chain, with the handle at the end of either, will act as a mass rotating around the ball and give it torque.
Unless, of course, you can release the combo so the chain or cable is trailing behind the ball, which is unlikely. When you swing a hammer/chain assy, you impart torque to the entire system and when released, the chain will tend to turn around the ball.
It depends on the mass of the chain/cable. If you swung a 10 lb fishing weight using a strong leader line, the leader would likely drag behind the weight. However, the hammers used in sports have either a chain with significant mass or a rigid handle with significant mass. In either case, the chain/handle will cause the ball to turn in flight.
“Before I will waste anytime with you, on this subject, you must admit that a horse running an oval track is NOT rotating on its own axis.”
So that captures the essence of your argument. Just look at it (the horse, the toy train, the moon). It just IS NOT rotating. It is only orbiting.
That’s it. Just an assertion. Just belief. No science at all. Really it is just you labeling something the way you see it
Nothing to rebut the science-based arguments that people have brought up many times:
Reference frames. YOU: They don’t matter.
Laws of rigid body dynamics. YOU: Don’t trust mainstream science.
Conservation of angular momentum. YOU: Nada. Or its more mainstream science so safe to ignore.
To summarize. Science based arguments don’t matter to you.
Your belief trumps science.
Thats ok. There is no real consequence for your belief. Enjoy your delusions.
G: “When you swing a hammer/chain assy, you impart torque to the entire system and when released, the chain will tend to turn around the ball.”
At least Gordon recognizes the reality of an experiment and tries to explain it.
Try to explain this experiment Gordon.
“If you are holding a long pole with some weight out horizontally, and you try to spin. You will find that the pole will initially resist that motion. It will require torque to get it going.
Same thing if you now stop spinning, the pole will resist stopping its rotation. Its got angular momentum.
Now while spinning with the pole, let it go. Does it stop its rotation as it flies through the air?
No it wont, because of its angular momentum.”
It’s funny when clowns like Nate get tangled up in their own pseudoscience.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
nate…”So that captures the essence of your argument. Just look at it (the horse, the toy train, the moon). It just IS NOT rotating. It is only orbiting.
That’s it. Just an assertion. Just belief. No science at all. Really it is just you labeling something the way you see it”
Could you try being less obtuse? In science, a rotating body about a central axis MUST have angular momentum about that axis. The Moon has no angular momentum about its central axis.
Case closed.
Gordon,
“In science, a rotating body about a central axis MUST have angular momentum about that axis. The Moon has no angular momentum about its central axis.
Case closed.”
Stating ‘Moon has no angular momentum’ is just like JD saying ‘look at the horse, it is NOT rotating’
Again, experiments show otherwise. Hold a broom out sideways and spin. When the broom is pointing North, let go.
When the broom has landed on the ground, is it still pointing North?
Result: No it is not.
It has continued to rotate as it flew thru the air because it did have angular momentum, just like the Moon does.
Of course this makes perfect sense. Clearly the far end of the broom was moving faster than the near end in my hand. When I let go, this difference in speed is maintained, thus the broom MUST spin.
“Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
Written by a publisher-who is not himself a scientist. He can be forgiven for not being precise.
“Stopped” in this case clearly means stopped relative to a rotating frame of reference, rotating with the moon around the Earth.
But JD, you think reference frames don’t matter. They do.
Nate tries to use throwing a broom as meaningful “evidence” that the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
Obviously he’s never heard of spears and javelins.
Next, he tries to debunk his own pseudoscience. That’s always funny.
skeptic….”Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis. But when the guy releases the cable, the hammer (or ball) spins around because it was spinning on its own axis before being released”.
No it wasn’t, and you can see that clearly in this hammer throw. The guy releases the ball while it is perpendicular to his rotation, which is a path tangential to the curve of the ball. If he released the ball before that point, or after it, the ball would veer off right or left.
You can see his finger are extended at that point with his grip released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WooCZNY6pE
When the ball is released it is moving tangential to its path and moving straight down it’s path. It is the mass of the chain and the handle that gives it torque and causes it to turn once through its flight.
As the thrower turns, the ball cannot turn about it’s own axis because it is attached by the chain. When it is released it is not turning either and the thrower releases it before he can add any torque.
Note that when the ball hits the ground that it does not spin at all, it rolls forward. That indicates it’s momentum is in that direction, exactly the same momentum as when it was released.
Gordon tells us: “When the ball is released..causes (the ball) to turn once”
Then Gordon tells us: “When (the ball) is released it is not turning either”
Gordon’s fantasy physics is revealed whenever Gordon can’t keep consistent the imaginary facts in a comment.
skeptic….here’s the explanation.
As the ball is released, the chain is on the thrower’s side of the ball. Look closely, and you can see the ball going dead straight. As it moves, it pulls the chain straight but the chain gains an angular momentum as it is pulled in an arc from the thrower’s side to straight behind the ball.
Due to it’s angular momentum, the chain cannot follow the ball in a straight line so it keeps moving CCW past a straight line. That momentum turns the ball.
Again, follow the ball by using the pause button as it is released. It goes dead straight with no spin. It does not spin till the chain swings around behind it CCW and carries on CCW.
ball4…”Gordon tells us: When the ball is released..causes (the ball) to turn once
Then Gordon tells us: When (the ball) is released it is not turning either”
Nice cherry-pick.
I said the ball is traveling straight along it’s tangential path when released and is not rotating. You can see the chain slip in behind it in a straight line as the ball pulls on it. Then the momentum of the chain, and handle, carry on CCW, causing the ball to rotate once over its flight.
Gordon,
We would not be having this conversation if you really had taken the engineering and physics courses you claim to have taken.
There is only tension in the cable. No torque. An object cannot just start spinning on its own. The ball was rotating on its axis prior to release. Tension in the cable cannot cause the ball to spin. That tension force is acting right through the center of the ball.
If the guy took 1 second to make one rotation of the hammer, and assuming the rotation is constant, then the angular velocity of the ball would be 2pi radians per second. And that would be the angular velocity of the ball when released, which is why it continues to spin on its own axis when released.
Gordon,
You ever watch dirt track racing:
https://tinyurl.com/y7lwrl
Why do you think the rear end of the car is spinning out CCW on a CCW turn. And why does the car completely spin out CCW when it loses complete traction? It was rotating on its own axis prior to spinning out. This is simple kinematics/mechanics. You should know better.
SGW says: “It was rotating on its own axis prior to spinning out.”
NOPE! It was in translational motion before the tires lost traction, changing the dynamics.
But, SGW stumbles into another trap of his own making. A car in “spinout’ is NOW “rotating on its axis”. Which means the car would appear as spinning to viewers both outside the track and inside the track. That is how true “rotating on its own axis” would appear. Before the spinout, it was clearly NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
SGW steps in his own pseudoscience, again.
“Before the spinout, it was clearly NOT “rotating on its own axis”.”
In the straightaway. Then the car started to turn in the turn moving both in translation & rotation.
Humorously JD steps in his own pseudoscience, again, and again and again..
Just out of curiosity, Ball4, what drugs are you on?
You can tell us, after all, you’re an anonymous addict.
nate…”Cool. Ren wins, Gordon loses on being concise”.
Anyone who can discuss a complex physics concept in a few words does not understand the concept and does not have the ability to convey meaning.
ren’s first language is Polish, as far as I know, so you would not expect him to write verbose comments.
Besides, I don’t see any signs on Roy’s blog limiting us to 25 words or less. In the old days of the BBS and early Internet, disk storage was pricey and hard to come by in volume. That’s not an issue today.
Einstein:
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
DA…”Einstein:
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
That means Einstein screwed up with relativity. His presumption that the human invention of time, coupled with the delusive human mind is a basis for observing relative motion was clearly wrong.
Einstein did not invent relativity, it was well established in Newtonian physics. With bodies in relative motion at terrestrial speeds, anyone can calculate the motion of a body on a separate reference frame using translating axes and common math. Einstein tried to extend that to bodies traveling near the speed of light, which included atomic processes.
I am not arguing about his basic math in GRT, I am arguing against the stupid conclusions reached via thought experiments that time can dilate, lengths can change, and that time represents a 4th dimension in space-time.
The notion of space-time has reached the stage of the ridiculous. We now have nimrod professors teaching in universities that gravity is not a force, rather it is related to space-time.
That comes directly from Einstein regarding acceleration as an independent phenomenon and ignoring the forces that drive acceleration. Such is the milieu of thought-experimenters. Sometimes they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The fact that lengths can change with speed pre-dates Einstein.
Lorentz, Michelson-Morley, and Fitzgerald if you are into googling the shoulders Einstein stood on.
Einstein did fully explain it as part of the Special Theory of Relativity.
bobd…”Lorentz, Michelson-Morley, and Fitzgerald if you are into googling the shoulders Einstein stood on”.
Lorentz, in particular, put out a formula for relative motion based on the presumption that time dilated and lengths changed as speeds neared the SOL.
Has it occurred to you that the equation of Lorentz was wrong, hence Einstein was wrong by relying on it?
Show me a significant use of GRT that can be applied at the SOL. It’s big claim to fame was the explanation of the retro motion of Mercury, which seemed to stop in it’s orbit, move back a ways, then carry on.
That could have easily been done using Newtonian relativity equations. The retro motion is an illusion of the human mind as we move on Earth and observe Mercury in relative motion.
Why did no one notice that the human mind is faulty in that regard, especially Einstein, when he presumed time, a human invention based on the rotational period of the Earth, could change with velocity?
Can you not see that yourself? The second is a sub-division of a period measured from Sun up one day till Sun up the next day. That period was divided by 86,400 to get one second.
That means time is absolute since it is based on an angular velocity that is absolute. If time dilates, the angular velocity of the planet must change.
Since time as 1/86400 of the Earth’s rotational period is also the distance turned on the Equator during the second, it means if length can change with velocity, then the measure of the Earth’s circumference must change.
The kilometre is defined as a fraction of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. If length can change with velocity then the distance from the NP to the Equator must change.
I am sorry, Einstein proved himself to be a great man but this has to be treated as his greatest blunder. He gave time physical properties that enabled it to affect real physical properties and he relied on the distorted human mind, prone to illusions, to determine motion on a separate frame, using time as an independent variable.
Why should one of two identical clocks run at a different rate in another frame if both are synchronized to the rotation of the Earth?
Why should one of a human set of twins age faster than another because he is traveling on another reference frame? Humans age due to cellular changes which have nothing to do with time as a causal factor.
I am afraid GRT is a thought-experiment running out of control based on stupid assumptions.
It’s not “thought experiments”.
GPS satellites incorporate relativity to produce accurate results.
Mercury’s orbit can be calculated accurately with relativity, but not with classical mechanics.
Particle accelerators confirm relativity daily.
The list goes on and on.
Gordon Robertson does not accept any experimental data that contradicts his opinions.
I have linked him to many but he makes fun of the videos without having the slightest ability to understand them.
gallopingcamel gave Gordon Robertson first hand example of mass increase as electrons approach light speed. The people building and designing particle accelerators must take relativity into account for the machine to work. No amount of real evidence can convince Gordon. He is immune. You can try but you will find you are wasting time.
Gordon is not the least bit interested in any science. He comes here to peddle his religion. I don’t think he has a clue of what science is or how it works. Both JDHuffman and Gordon Robertson make declarations (which go against experimental physics and real world observations) and think people on this blog will believe them. They have a couple converts here and there, mostly people that have zero science background.
tim…”GPS satellites incorporate relativity to produce accurate results”.
There is no GRT used in GPS systems. There’s no need for it. Communications between the sats and the ground stations is done via several electronic signals which serve to synchronize the atomic clocks on the sats and the clocks on the surface.
The sats use their own time based system and the ground stations are synced to Greenwich. All that’s required to keep sat clocks and ground clocks synced is the information transmitted/received by each via the electronic signals.
We have excellent electronic devices these days to do all that automatically then output an error signal which is beamed back to the sats.
Remember, electron signals travel at the speed of light.
Sorry, Gordon, but you are several steps behind in your understanding of the details of GPS.
“To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ”
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
“A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects that would render the system useless if uncorrected.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
Tim and Gordon are both correct here, but for different reasons.
Tim is correct that “corrections” are made to the GPS system for relativistic effects.
Gordon is correct that those “corrections” are not “proof” of either GR or SR.
The final GPS calculation contains enough errors that the “corrections” for relativity are lost in the “soup”.
tim…”Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface”.
You linked to an astronomer who provides us with this gem:
“Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface”.
Curvature of spacetime???? What is curving, other than an illusion in the mind of the believer? There is no substance to curve. This is bs of the highest order.
We know for a fact that time is based on the rotation of the Earth. The second is 1/86400 of the period of rotation. That is 60 sec/min x 60 min/hour x 24 hours/day = 86400 seconds/day.
TIME IS FIXED. TIME IS ABSOLUTE. Einstein and ridiculous assumptions based on GRT, like spacetime, are wrong.
It’s absolute bs that spacetime exists let alone that it varies with altitude above the Earth. Gravity is a force, obviously related to the charges in atoms, or some atomic force of which we are not aware. Gravitational force travels much faster than light. It takes 8 minutes for light to reach the Earth from the Sun but the gravitational force is instantaneous.
There is no proof whatsoever that clocks are affected by gravitational force. Maybe with a rusty old spring-based alarm, gravity may have an effect on it’s action but I highly doubt that gravity would affect the atoms in an atomic clock to affect their vibration.
If it does happen, so what? Time as we know it is fixed to the rotational period of the planet.
I have expertise in the electronics used in communications and I can tell you right now that no electronic equipment can measure a dilation of time. As I told you, such bogus theories are not required.
Sats use an atomic clock as the base of a time system used on sats. It is a different time system than the system used on the surface, which must comply with Greenwich time. Yes, there will be errors between the two due to internal errors in the clocks as well as relativity considerations but none of those errors is related to this bs about time dilation.
The sats are constantly streaming several data signals packed with info on altitude, speed, time, etc. The ground stations as well as GPS receivers are receiving this data but the ground stations are streaming data back at the sats.
The signals are locked to each other through phase-locked loops or whatever they use and errors signals are sent both ways. There is electronics on each end to process the error signals and make corrections.
That’s all you need.
Airliners use a similar system. The airliner has a transponder that transmits data regarding its altitude, location, time, etc. Ground radar receives that data on a separate antenna on the radar sail and processes it along with the radar’s position detection to give a blip on the radar screen along with the ID of the airliner.
JD…”Tim is correct that corrections are made to the GPS system for relativistic effects”.
I have stated that in the past and I agree with it. With two bodies in motion there has to be adjustments for relative speed. With today’s electronics, however, there is no problem tracking signals sent from satellites and locking onto them.
That’s been going on since WWII when radar was developed. Planes would send out a signal which ground stations received and the ground radar would lock onto them. That’s done with servo mechanisms.
For bobdroege, Tim Folkerts
The most incredible thing is that this ignorant boaster recently was also brazenly enough to insult and discredit the people who made the work described here:
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
Benjamin Botermann & al. 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951.pdf
The peon at the anti-matter factory says thanks, I’ll take a look at the paper.
binny…”The most incredible thing is that this ignorant boaster recently was also brazenly enough to insult and discredit the people who made the work described here:”
I have only pointed out the obvious. They are not measuring time dilation they are measuring something else which they have mistaken for time dilation.
Again, time is derived from the orbital period of the Earth. If time dilates it means the planet must change its angular velocity.
Take Newton II for example, which is written f = ma. It means that a mass will accelerate from rest when a force is applied provided the force is great enough to move the mass from rest and there are no opposing forces to counter the motion.
If we write the equation as a = f/m with a = d^2s/d^2t then we can theoretically manipulate the equation so it is in terms of t = whatever.
That is absolute nonsense, t does not even exist and it is fixed by the Earth’s rotational period. Both Einstein and Lorentz argued that time is not absolute, that it can vary, but neither offered an experiment to prove that.
The paper at the link you posed claims to prove that, making them incredibly naive. There are obviously forces and masses involved that change, but not time.
That’s what happens when you kiss butt to thought-experiments that become paradigms. You start talking nonsense.
DA…”In a reference frame rotating at the same rate as the Earth with its axis of rotation in the same direction, the Earth is not rotating. Of course”.
Are you serious? That’s the same mistake made by Einstein in his relativity theory.
Reality should not be observed from the perspective of a human observer unless the observer is fully aware of the imperfections of the human mind. The human mind is too full of garbage and bias, not to mention that it’s prone to illusion. The human observer must remove himself/herself from the observation and view reality as a machine might see it.
That would require sitting down at a table and drawing out the correct perspective. Had Einstein done that with relativity he would have seen immediately that Newton was right and that time is not only absolute, it does not exist.
If I was a machine, which I regret to tell you I’m not, and I was rotating around a local axis while another machine was rotating around a different axis, are you trying to tell me neither machine could detect that it is turning?
What you are describing is a distortion in the human observer’s mind which prevents him/her observing relative motion correctly.
Einstein somehow began with the wrong assumption that time is measured by the hands on a clock. Rather, a period of time is constrained due to its definition based on the constant rotational period of the Earth upon which it is defined. Einstein thought time could expand and contract which would require the Earth’s angular velocity to speed up and slow down.
In the same manner, you as the observer turning on Earth while observing another rotation on a separate reference frame may have the illusion that the Earth is not turning.
We suffer that illusion every day. We think the Sun is rising and setting between which extremes it is orbiting the Earth. With such a mind making observations of relative motion, is it any wonder Einstein screwed up by basing his observations on time?
Replace the human observer in your example with a machine capable of detecting angular velocity in both reference frames and you will see that both bodies are turning. Put a similar machine on the Moon and it will detect no angular velocity wrt it’s own axis.
Gordo wrote more nonsense:
How about placing a camera at the pole, pointed up. Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame. Do the same on the Moon and won would expect to see a similar photo, though a longer exposure time would be required.
“Orbiting” versus “rotating on its own axis”, ES.
Orbital motions are hard to fathom, for some….
swannie…”Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame. Do the same on the Moon and won would expect to see a similar photo, though a longer exposure time would be required”.
The Earth actually is turning and a person lacking awareness might be deluded into thinking the heavens were turning. I have been doing a lot of this lately and it’s mind bending to stand on a tangential frame on Earth at Vancouver Canada and figure out what is what.
If you put the same camera on the Moon it would trace out an arc around the heavens as the Earth turned, with the Moon tidally-locked to it. On Earth, you would point the camera at the Polar Star and the Earth’s rotation would view the heavens around it. With the Moon on a similar orbital plane to the planets, you’d see an entirely different part of the sky but it would not appear to be circling the Moon’s north pole.
Gordo, Photographic evidence of the Earth’s rotation in the celestial inertial reference frame is widely available. For example, HERE’s a nice YOUTUBE video, shot in the Southern Hemisphere. Photographing the sky from the Moon would also show similar evidence of rotation, except that the time lapse period would need to be longer to include the Moon’s slower rate of rotation. The fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth does not change the fact that the Moon rotates WRT the stars. Orbiting is the path of the center of mass, not rotation of the body.
ES, the Moon would “see” the stars appear to be rotating, due to its orbital motion. The Moon definitely has an orbital motion. But, it does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
Two distinct motions, you’re encouraged to learn about them.
HuffingMan, When I worked (briefly) building satellites, I took a course in Dynamics, which was a graduate level course at University. As we were working on attitude control systems, we had to understand the meaning of an “inertial reference frame”. Orbital motion describes the translation of the center of mass of a body as it moves around a larger mass under the influence of gravity. Rotation has nothing to do with translation of the C.G. of the body.
As you note, “the Moon would “see” the stars appear to be rotating…”, which is proof of the Moon’s rotation in the inertial reference frame defined by the field of distant stars.
ES, you seem to be trying to agree with me, while not agreeing with me.
So, just so you can be clear:
Yes or no, “Is the Moon rotating on its own axis”?
Every astronomer in the world knows the Moon rotates.
But somehow Ger*an* thinks he’s smarter than all of the.
I don’t really consider myself smart, DA.
I just have an appreciation for reality.
You dont need a complex machine. A Foucault pendulum would suffice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Its plane of oscillation would rotate at high lunar latitudes, as it does on Earth.
???? Of course Einstein realized that time is relative.
pochas…”???? Of course Einstein realized that time is relative”.
And he was wrong. Time is derived from the period of the Earth’s rotation and the second, being a small fraction of that period, is fixed. Newton was right.
Gordon thinks he can say Einstein is wrong.
Even though Einstein’s physics agrees with every experiment and observation ever conducted.
And Gordon’s physis are so stupid even a beginning physics student can see through him.
Gordon is too dumb to know even how dumb he is.
Is there a word for this dumb, stupid state?
DA…”Gordon thinks he can say Einstein is wrong”.
Are you disagreeing that the second is based on the rotation of the Earth. Einstein declared in his GRT that time is the hands on a clock.
He should have looked past that to see what it really is, then he would have gotten it, like Newton, that time is absolute.
I say that Einstein was wrong and Newton was right. In fact, as scientific researchers go, Newton was light years ahead of Einstein, who was solely a thought-experimenter.
One critique of Einstein by an expert in time was that Einstein did not understand measurement techniques. That’s plain when you consider that the second is a fraction of a period determined by a constant velocity, which can also be measured as an equivalent distance around the Earth’s circumference.
Therefore, if distance can change due to relativity, and time can dilate, the angular velocity of the Earth must change.
“The second has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”.
Some call it, “Appell-itis”.
MODTRAN6 http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot is a computer program developed for the Airforce Research Laboratory which (besides other things) can calculate the radiation flux in the atmosphere for specified constituents and conditions. It contains default values for several environments including the 1976 Standard Atmosphere. Radiation profiles at several altitudes, as calculated by MODTRAN6, are shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dku9fr1V4AUVdU_.jpg
However, this figure is misleading; especially below about 10 km. Approximately 161 W/m2 of solar energy reaches the solid and liquid surfaces of the planet. A few meters above the surface, the energy leaving the surface includes about 71 W/m2 from heat of vaporization of water (annual rainfall averages about a meter and what comes down had to have gone up). Another 17 W/m2 has been added by convective heat transfer, leaving 161 – 71 – 17 = 73 W/m2 in thermal radiation of which about 40 leaves through the ‘atmospheric window’ leaving only 33 W/m2 instead of the 229 W/m2 (which excludes that thru the window) assumed at all altitudes by MODTRAN6.
More on this is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com.
Your analysis is correct, Dan. The water “heat pipe” is in control of near-surface temperatures in non-desert areas, totally obviating any effect from that “monster” gas CO2. Congratulations!
And, I might add, a little extra water in marginal areas can have a big effect on global surface temperatures.
Dan you seem to have a few significant misconceptions going on.
Here’s one of the most obvious I notice. The graphs you show are not the net IR flux. All of your graphs are the UPWARD IR when looking DOWN at the surface. Go back to MODTRAN and try looking UP to get the calculated downward IR flux. Then subtract the two. This is the number you want to compare to the 73 W/m^2 you estimate.
Yeahbut, latent heat in convective columns doesn’t count as radiant flux.
Tim,, Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately the freebee MODTRAN6 gives both up and down radiance only at zero altitude. Subtracting down from up results in74.6 W/m2 compared to the 73 W/m2 from my simple calc. This resolves the conflict and explains that the graphs are for the total energy flux, not just the radiation part. Of course at TOA, all of the energy flux is by radiation. I will update my blog/analysis accordingly.
Another version of MODTRAN (no 6) at http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ gives both up and down radiance graphs but does not give the needed numerical data.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Is Tamino dishonest?
Tamino doesn’t want me to participate in the discussion about slowdowns.
He won’t publish my comment on his website.
Luckily I have my own website, where I can say whatever I like.
Here is the comment which Tamino didn’t want people to see.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-dishonest
Sheldon,
Don’t understand your post on agree-to-disagree.
For example you add noise to signal with a slowdown, then
“Does that mean that there is no longer a slowdown there? We know that the slowdown is there, because it was in the original signal. Alarmists will now tell you that there is no slowdown. But there IS a slowdown there, it is just hidden by the noise.
In general we do not know what is the signal and what is the noise as in your example. So it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
Also, you imply that statistical significance of trends is pointless, even over long periods? Certainly one can ask whether a flat trend over one decade period is a significantly better fit than the long-term trend line.
Using Cowtan’s Trend calculator, the GISS trend since 1970 is 0.18 pm 0.03 C/dec
The trend during the ‘pause’ 2002-2012 was 0.013 pm 0.242 C/dec
Looks like a flat trend, but not stat significant, since the long-term trend of 0.18 is well inside the error bar on trend.
Now FYI the trend after the ‘pause’ 2008-18 is 0.438 pm 0.283 C/dec, again the long term trend of 0.18 is inside the error bar.
How long do we need to get the error well below the long term trend 0.18, to say 0.1? 20 years.
But over 20 y, there is no pause apparent.
So my point is we CAN say if a flat trend (or any other) is sig. better than the long-term trend. But more than a decade is required to do so.
The bottom line is the climate is neutral with a slight biased toward a down trend over the last few years but still much warmer then it was, say in contrast to the 1960-1990 climatic baseline.
Until the climate starts to approach that territory it is essentially neutral.
For the AGW enthusiast until the climate shows further warmth beyond what is has accomplished before the current lower trend over the last few years the climate is also in a state of being essentially neutral.
One big problem for my theory which I do not know the answer to, is what are the threshold levels and duration of time for the things I think control the climate to have more of a major effect upon the climate? I know they are out there. I am hoping to find out.
Next few years have a good chance to shed more light on this I hope.
It’s been long wait, but now all the criteria for cooling are in place. 2020 will be the transition year, and AGW enthusiasts will be proved wrong.
I might be a bit early very possible.
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256283
Snapleton Del Prune
Wow! Pretty good.
You say 2020 I still think 2018.
You’ve already committed to 2018, and to 2017 before that. Why not throw in a third transition year for good measure.
Rotate a tennis ball 360 degrees. Now do the same with a yardstick attached. It is no longer rotating!
Swannie
“How about placing a camera at the pole, pointed up. Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame.”
No. When a body spins in a circle WRT the stars, that’s an ORBITAL motion, not rotation. Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
If you want to do a simple experiment that demonstrates the Moon using a tennis ball and a yardstick, your example is not comparable to the Earth/Moon system.
If you want to use this simple device to show what is really going on with the Moon you would have to have the tennis ball rotational motion completely separate from the yardstick. You could build it with a rod through the tennis ball that connects to the yardstick with a bearing so it is free to spin. Next have a motor to spin the tennis ball. Set a slow rotation so that as the tennis ball rotates on its axis and you move the ball around in an orbital path around you with the yardstick, orbit the ball at the same rate it is spinning. If you do it correctly you will see the same face on the tennis ball but it is rotating on its axis and it is also keeping the same face toward you. This is what is going on with the Earth/Moon. Earth’s gravity is not a tractor beam that holds the moon so it can’t spin. Tidal locking does not mean holding the Moon in place like in your yardstick tennis ball sample.
Norman, this is just ONE of the many reasons you have NO credibility.
You have responded to a comment by child Snape, attempting to be cute by corrupting my name. You were unable to figure it out, as you are unable to figure out a lot of things.
And your comment was just more of your meaningless rambling.
Now, you can get belligerent and try to blame your mistakes and indecencies on me.
That’s when it really gets funny!
JDHuffman
Really??
Is this your post or is it Snape impersonating your?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322966
This is the post I am responding to.
In this post you make the unsupported declaration: “This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT rotate on its own axis. It is securely attached to the yardstick.”
I am countering this declaration. It is NOT an exact model of the Moon orbiting. The Moon is free to rotate on its axis, and it does. It rotates once very slowly. You really don’t know what the heck you are talking about but you will gab on this topic for many posts. Wrong on every one and not willing to even entertain the possibility you are the one wrong and not all the brilliant astronomers and scientists out there. I think the odds greatly favor you are confused, mixed up and are holding on to a fantasy.
Yup, really!
Child Snape sets a trap, and you fall in, head first!
Just as predicted. You won’t own up to your mistake, but you’ll attack me.
Your only credibility is as a clown.
JDHuffman
Is the post I linked to yours or not?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322966
JDHuffman
This one seems to be Snape making fun of you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323039
This is not the comment I am posting about. Look at the link in the post above.
Norman, you will have to ask child snape which times she corrupted the names. She will probably answer. She thinks you are a great science-guy.
That just makes it even funnier!
JDHuffman
Maybe this will help you answer the question: Is this your post?
“JDHuffman says:
October 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM
Yes the wagon is changing direction, because it is moving in a circular motion. At each incremental position, the motion is translational. The next incremental portion, the motion is still translational, but in a different direction. It is exactly the motion of the Moon about the Earth.
Let’s try one more example before giving up.
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis”. It is securely attached to the yardstick.
If you can weasel your way out of this, your get the “Pseudoscience Clown” award of the day!”
Can’t you tell who posted?
Take it up with child Snape.
JDHuffman
Sounds a lot like your posts, also I have seen zero evidence that Snape directly posts as JDHuffman. He/she may use a funny similar name but I have not seen them every use an already used name with a phony post.
So that is not your post?
Norman, no matter which comment you responded to in terms of content, you actually clicked ‘reply’ on a comment written by a “JDHuffnpuff”. That you didn’t notice that is not anybody else’s fault. Please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Back to your unwavering support of g.e.r.a.n I see.
Content is what matters. Your buddy failed completely to address the content of my post and will continue to do so. Your silly pretend moderation (which is really trolling and blind support for g.e.r.a.n) gives him support and allows his distractions.
Your really good pal makes up stuff and when someone tries to get him to validate it he starts on distractions and avoids the issue completely. You enable this negative behavior. Why you do this only you know.
Criticizing you is not supporting someone else. And no, the point was that you clicked ‘reply’ to a comment by “JDHuffnpuff” without noticing. Time to just admit you were thick, wrong and a troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
In the context of your criticism it is actually supporting JDHuffman’s distractions.
The Huffpuff post was not important to the post and I was not addressing the content of the post but rather than post it far above it was a good place to post it. I read that post and scrolled up to find the JDHuffman actual source, which is what I was responding to. The post contained no insult, nothing negative. It was just making a point that to compare the Moon system to a tennis ball and a yardstick, it would be necessary to have the tennis ball disconnected from the yardstick on a rotational basis. The tennis ball needs to be free to rotate independent of the yardstick motion.
Why do you feel it is your duty and responsibility to protect and support your good buddy JDHuffman? You should criticize him for making unsupported declarations.
“Not criticizing someone” is not the same thing as “supporting someone”. And no, the point was that you clicked ‘reply’ to a comment by “JDHuffnpuff” without noticing. Time to just admit you were thick, wrong and a troll.
Woaaaaah!
Look, the Globe is COOLING, look at the graph’s right end:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wH0gYDGtpfbuezk6beQUv5oTI7O94q-/view
I’m horrified. Salvatore is right.
Sauve qui peut!
A funny detail: this is since mid 2016 the first time I let Excel plot the graph again, out of the actual sources at ‘colorado.edu’.
I had to move the graph’s bottom from -3 Mkm2 down to -5 Mkm2 in order to see the most recent negative peak.
Ha ha.
I see no further global warming of late. That is my answer.
Salvatore: why do you think anyone cares what you think? You’ve become a laughingstock.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Sal
2019 will be interesting. On one side, a really bothersome el nino (they need to be outlawed!) On the other, the deep freeze power of a grand solar minimum.
The fate of AGW hangs in the balance.
It’s time to go to bed at UTC+2…
Before shutting down, here is a chart showing GHCN V3 / daily with UAH land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TA_173lO4-emhJbcMA__8M_1XlwTPfZA/view
All GHCN time series were generated as anomalies wrt 1981-2010 out of their absolute data for the comparison with UAH.
We all know: surface and lower troposphere at about 4-5 km altitude are very different places, but the correlation nevertheless is amazing, especially when comparing GHCN daily and UAH land.
Bonne nuit!
Bin,
How did you calculate the values for the 35-month running means at the end of the series? The smooths seem to go up to 2018, but there is not 35 months to centre on at those ends. Are you using 35-month means looking back in time, rather than centred (IE, Jan 1990 is av of the previous 35 months)?
barry
I never calculate these running means: they are computed by Excel as one of some trend procedure possibilities (linear, polynomial, running mean). You click on a time series plot drawn by Excel and tell the guy which kind of trend you want.
Secondly, these running means are NOT centred. So yes: they look back in time, you see that because they start exactly as many months later on the graph than you specified.
And apo for a little mistake: the running means in fact are based upon 36 months. The 35 in the title is a typo.
Yes, that seemed the likeliest explanation.
Because of the strange numbering of the X axis I was not sure how many months into the record the smooth started.
Here is a similar graph, this time encompassing the 20th century (1895 because it is the start of most US temp graphs):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I3-xFeN9euFkWXID7NrevPq-HZEAXqOy/view?usp=sharing
As you can see, all running means (60 months) nearly land in a nutshell.
All 4 time series have their own reference period:
– GISS land 1951-1980
– CRUTEM4 1961-1990
– NOAA land 1971-2000
– GHCN daily (own choice here) 1981-2010
The first three time series were displaced by their mean for 1981-2010.
Here is another displacement example where I generated two GHCN daily time series, one with reference period 1971-2000, one with reference period 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S5P-h7g6ZILtWpkPXTghVz-mHCnW_2Bc/view
Of course the two are
– a bit different due to slightly different station subsets fulfilling baseline requirements for 2 different time periods;
– displaced due to different average temperatures for these periods.
You see the differences when the blue 1971-2000 plot is displaced by its 1981-2010 mean (red) so you can compare it with the green 1981-2010 plot.
But the differences are really tiny for us laypersons, we are no professionals here after all. On a yearly average, you probably wouldn’t see them anymore.
ATTENTION PEOPLE OF EARTH!
In a major new scientific find, eminent physicist JD Huffman has discovered the moon is orbiting!
NASA to come out with a news conference heralding this exciting major find.
When reached by CNN, JD Huffman stated authoritatively, “Its what the Moon is doing.”
Film at eleven.
Someone has ran out of meds.
JDHuffman
I thought is showed a creative humor streak. I found it amusing.
Norman, here’s some more pseudoscience you will like.
Just ignore the one sentence: “Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
The rest you should really enjoy–pure pseudoscience.
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
What about this one
“Its always turning, showing us exactly the same face. Whats it hiding?”
Through every season turn turn turn
Yes bob, orbital motion is hard to understand, for some. There are even those that believe a racehorse is “rotating on its own axis”, as it runs the track.
Funny, huh?
Stare at the real Moon, on the left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
See it rotate?
Moon on the left is “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
How many times are you going to link to that useless graphic? Don’t you have any new pseudoscience?
Both objects are orbiting, you IDIOT.
Yes SGW, both are orbiting. Very good.
But only one is rotating on its own axis. And, you don’t know which one it is.
50-50% chance, if you guess right.
Here’s some more pseudoscience you can gulp down, SGW.
Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
“The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting.”
JD keeps making up stuff. He said only the one on the left was orbiting. Now he says both are.
Link to where I said that, SGW, please.
Look it up for yourself. It’s called the “find” feature.
The quote is from you. Just shows how confused and clueless you are.
Translation: You can’t produce it.
Nothing new.
LMAO. The idiot can’f find the find feature.
I can use the find feature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322855
barry apparently shares this inability to understand the English language.
For the thick:
As there are two motions being discussed, “orbiting” and “rotation of an object on its own axis”, and a person stresses that in the diagram on the left there is only one motion present, “orbiting” – and they place the emphasis on the word “ONE” – then you should infer from this that in the diagram on the right they think “BOTH” motions are present.
Just thought I’d pop in real quick. Looks like temperature anomaly still following decline from 2016 El Nino, indicating pause never went away.
In other news, people still arguing the Moon doesn’t rotate. OK. Gotta’ run.
Pause was never there – not statistically.
And the trend since 1998 is still positive, and still not statistically significant with UAH data.
How do you statistically show that a “pause” doesn’t exist?
If the trend since 1998 is not significant, how is that not a pause?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322982
“How do you statistically show that a pause doesn’t exist?”
Read for example
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2064100/
or look in Google for links found by searching “Statistical Issues Regarding Trends” or the like…
Please have a look at
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
and at the difference between
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1he1TNC6sw3bsQT1SicwnWWI5uwwdtEiu/view?usp=sharing
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QjKPiB2FcHvXhNeDvFFg-g46RbH2XjrV/view?usp=sharing
When I use LINEST in Excel, I don’t see such a difference.
Simply because LINEST is a general purpose estimate, which does not account for issues related to time series.
What issues related to time series? LINEST just provides statistics in addition to what the usual SLOPE and INTERCEPT functions provide. LINEST, SLOPE, and TREND use least squares methodology. If time is the only independent variable, there should be no issues related to a time series.
Please enlighten me.
Chic doesn’t understand simple, 12th grade linear regression.
Chic, go put your nose in a book for awhile, and this time try to learn what you should have learned in high school.
Chic,
Let’s work through this together.
Define ‘pause’ in this context, and I ask you very specifically to describe what the pause is in relation to. A pause from what?
When we have a concrete definition, we can test for pause or not.
Barry,
Working together. What a pleasant invitation.
Off the top of my head (which is bare), I refer to a pause in the context of global temperatures as an apparent, if not significant, change in a trend over at least a few decades. According to this definition, there was an increasing trend through at least two decades from 1979 on. From now backwards, the significance of the trend depends how far back you go and on what level you pick for the confidence interval of the trend.
Before replying, please see my recent comment on a new thread.
This has already been done, barry.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/how-the-world-really-warmed-between-the-70s-and-the-00s-part-i/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
Chic,
“The Pause” is only the last one in a string of “pauses” going all the way back to the 60s (and surely further back as well, but by then the data becomes sketchy). This simply appears to be how the Earth’s climate operates – through (abrupt) regime changes separating different (and much more protracted) regime states, the global climate thus multi-decadally fluctuating around a secular solar-controlled mean balance level. There is simply more solar heat to the Earth now than a few decades ago (hence, our planet warms), and likely even more so than a century ago …
“The Pause” in global temps is seen relative to the SSTa of the tropical East Pacific, basically the NINO region. It’s not like you can just “see” it by looking at the global temps themselves. You need to understand the processes BEHIND the global temperature data we collect. barry doesn’t want to go there at all. He doesn’t seem to harbour any kind of curiosity when it comes to this particular subject. He just wants to look at statistical trends and play around with them. He’s not really interested in HOW the data behind those trend lines actually progresses in time. Why is there a peak here? Why a trough there? Why is not much happening along this stretch? They’re all because of the truly global influence of the ENSO process. And so you compare global temps with (properly scaled) NINO SSTa, which is far and away the biggest player with respect to Earth’s annual and interannual ‘climate’ variability, and discover in what way the two curves diverge. You will soon notice it doesn’t happen gradually; it very much happens IN STEPS.
Explained and described here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/how-the-world-really-warmed-between-the-70s-and-the-00s-part-i/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
Thanks, Kristian.
Bullsh!t, Kristian.
You are only cherrypicking.
Because the facts are not on your side.
Kristian thinks people are too stupid to see through his games.
Deniers like Kristian cannot offer a serious argument if their lives depend on it.
Tired of liars.
Chic,
I refer to a pause in the context of global temperatures as an apparent, if not significant, change in a trend over at least a few decades. According to this definition, there was an increasing trend through at least two decades from 1979 on. From now backwards, the significance of the trend depends how far back you go and on what level you pick for the confidence interval of the trend.
Thank you. I read your new-thread post further down, BTW.
I agree more or less with that definition. I would say that there is a fairly linear trend from 1975 to 1998. I’d prefer to use that period for the first part, because the trend is statistically significant with that much data using surface records (though I’m happy to extend farther back). This isn’t the case for the trend 1979 – 1997 using satellite data. Not quite enough information for the trend to be larger than the uncertainty. However, I’ll also work with the sat data to be even-handed.
I’d like to treat this question of pause or not with the ‘null hypothesis’ method.
Does that sound ok?
David erupts with some more fireworks, to keep the crowd entertained.
Barry,
Of course it’s OK. However, just two things. I’m only comfortable analyzing the UAH data. And having run some regressions on the data already, I found the slope of the “pause” section of the data not much less than the earlier period. So how the significance of the data is calculated is crucial. Let me know your methodology.
I use the autoregression on moving averages statistical model to account for autocorrelation and calculate uncertainty. One could do it with an AR1 model and get similar results.
Here’s an online app that uses the ARMA(1,1) model for calculating linear regression.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
You can check my work against it.
My definition of a statistically verifiable ‘pause’ is where the trend and uncertainty are statistically distinct from what came before. IOW, if there is overlap in the uncertainty, then any change in trend, such as a ‘pause’, is not statistically distinct from the previous trend. This is a logical extension of statistical significance WRT linear trends (all calculated at the 95% confidence level).
Let’s set up our ‘null’, which is warming at a certain rate
+ uncertainty, and then let’s try to disprove the null with data from 1998 to 2012, 2015, and to 2017.
I’m going to use the Met Office surface data first, just because it seems the least objectionable to most parties (it has the lowest warming trends), and because the warming trend is statistically significant from 1975 to 1997. It’s good to have a ‘null’ that has a statistically significant trend. Also, the data present as fairly linear, which is also better for the comparison.
I will also do this for UAH data in a follow-up post, as you prefer.
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1976 to Dec 1997:
0.174 C/decade (+/- 0.077)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
0.097 and 0.251 C/decade.
Now:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.088 and 0.192 C/decade
The uncertainty in the post 1998-trend overlaps – very strongly – with the prior warming trend.
IE, the alleged trend change post 1998 is not statistically distinct from the prior warming trend.
This is the case also for 1998 to 2015, and 1998 to 2017. In fact, there is no period from 1998 that is statistically distinct from the prior warming period.
I can show this in a slightly different way visually. I will show the (ordinary least squares) trend 1979 to 1998 and include 2 sigma error bars (roughly).
1975-1998 obs and trend
I’ve extended the error bars out to Dec 2017, as the expected envelope of possible temperature anomalies if warming were to continue. Now let’s see what happened with temps up to Dec 2012. These were the latest temps when IPCC commented on the supposed pause in 2013.
1975-2012 obs
The temps still fall within the 2 sigma range under a continued warming scenario. Now up to Dec 2015, just before the big el Nino.
1975-2015 obs
While the temps seem to have stalled from 1998, anomalies are still within the 2-sigma envelope assuming continued warming. I don’t think there has been a deviation for long enough to show a statistically significant deviation from the prior trend. And the trend estimates above bear out what we’re seeing visually here.
Here’s what things look like up to Dec 2017.
1975-2017 obs
If there was a pause, it’s gone. But there was never a statistical pause in the first place, as I hope I’ve demonstrated.
Now for UAH data and a few further comments.
Now for UAH data:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1979 to Dec 1997
0.091 C/decade (+/- 0.161)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.070 and 0.252 C/decade
That’s our ‘null’.
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012
-0.068 C/decade (+/- 0.247)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.315 and 0.179 C/decade
This uncertainty falls within the previous warming rate. The null is not disproved.
There are some important caveats with stat sig and nulls.
Failing to disprove the null does not in any way prove the null. The null is always an assumption or a given – albeit oftentimes an assumption with strong statistical backing.
Just because the null is not disproved, that doesn’t mean that there has not been a change, only that it cannot be claimed to have definitely occurred – not statistically, at least.
Which was the point you first picked up on, Chic in this subthread. You replied to me saying:
“Pause was never there not statistically.”
Dis-satisfyingly, in the UAH data there is too much variability to get a statistically significant trend for periods less than 20 years. So our ‘null’ is not statistically significant. However, the point remains the same – the uncertanties overlap. There is no statistical ‘pause’ from an assumed prior warming.
Here are the graphical demonstrations of UAH trend and 2-sigma envelope. The ‘predictor’ is the ordinary least squares trend from Jan 1979 to Dec 1998:
1979 to 1998 obs + trend
1979 to 2012 obs
1979 to 2015 obs
1979 to 2017 obs
I recommend putting them in tabs side by side and clicking one to the other. Approximates a blink chart.
Me (to Chic):
“You need to understand the processes BEHIND the global temperature data we collect. barry doesn’t want to go there at all. He doesn’t seem to harbour any kind of curiosity when it comes to this particular subject. He just wants to look at statistical trends and play around with them. He’s not really interested in HOW the data behind those trend lines actually progresses in time.”
And barry of course ignores and just go on: trends, trends, trends, statistical significance, trends, trends, trends …
Hahaha! Q.E.D. No curiosity about the data whatosoever. Why it progresses the way it does. What natural processes and mechanisms lie behind.
barry:
*Facepalm*
That’s because the statistically generated TREND LINE that you draw ACROSS the actual data covering that period is LINEAR, barry. The temperature data itself doesn’t progress in a linear fashion. Only YOUR TREND LINE does.
Look at the DATA! Not at the trend line.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/trend.png
Oooh, look at that ‘fairly linear trend’.
No, Kristian, I think the period is linear in character because of statistical testing for the goodness of fit done by expert statisticians, Grant Foster, for one.
Are you familiar with, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Don’t lie about me ignoring stuff when we’ve discussed it previously and I found your arguments unconvincing.
As you consistently misrepresent what I think, don’t bother speaking for me.
Some stoopids even think they are so genial that they can argue Einstein is wrong with relativity.
C’est la vie, dit-on ‘chez nous’.
Oh Bindidolina, sock puppeteer extraordinaire, I know how much you hate people calling each other stupid. The best thing you can do here is to call other people stupid yourself.
To your attention, immoderate pseudomoderator
1. Despite yours and Robertson’s conviction (which doesn’t disturb me at all, I know how people like you two get ‘convinced’), we are here two persons sharing over 30 years of life, a little house, an old computer, the browsers, and… the same Internet provider and thus even the same dynamic IP addresses!
2. You must be very new here. Otherwise you would have detected that Rose and I we call ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ etc only those people having previously called us (and others) ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ or even ‘dumbass’.
*
These latter people all are ‘by accident’ exactly those you carefully avoid to ask for ‘please stop trolling’, even when they pretend ‘Einstein had it wrong’ or the like.
That strange, partial silence tells everything about… you.
Sure, “he started it”. That’s the most mature way to proceed.
Good to see you are really married to this sock puppetry idea.
[ Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “How will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. ]
This is from the NOAA too…
Norman
You’re right. I may on occasion use a silly moniker (i.e. Artemis Dimwitty), but would never steal someone’s identity.
******
It looks like Huffy is embarrassed by the comment you referenced:
“If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed…..”
and is trying to pass it off onto me.
It looks like you are trolling. Always has, always will.
snape commented as “JDHuffnpuff”, clearly confusing Norman.
snape then went on with false accusations (above).
Both activities hurt a blog.
“JDHuffman” = Ger*an.
Why isn’t Roy blocking this dude again?
DA wants censorship because he cannot defend his pseudoscience.
What’s next DA, concentration camps?
David Appell: a thick, fat, ugly, wrong, obnoxious fascist.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% sunlight at 1 AU distance from the Sun has uniform temperature of about -18 C
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1.19 AU has uniform temperature about -18 C.
When sunlight is about 1360 Watts per square meter at 1 AU, at distance of 1.19 AU sunlight is about 960 Watts per square meters and the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody would uniformly absorb 240 watts per square of a sphere and would emit uniformly 240 watts per square meter [and would not reflect any sunlight- human eyes could not see it].
Mars Semimajor axis distance [or average distance from sun] is 1.524 AU.
Mars average global temperature is somewhere around -60 C and has sunlit ground surface temperatures of 20 C or warmer. And average sunlight when at zenith at the surface is about 600 watts per square meter. Mars reflects sunlight and can appear like a bright star from Earth.
If Mars was at 1.19 AU rather than 1.524 AU, what would it’s global average temperature, be?
The best source for a reliable info certainly is commenter galloping camel alias Peter Morcombe.
From a little, somewhat simple-minded Excel spreadsheet I obtain 307 K with an albedo at 0.15, and 297 K with one at 0.25.
The reality is certainly more complex, see galloping camel’s comments in Roy Spencer’s previous head post.
Sorry, wrong data, I’m unconcentrated. The supposed temperatures at Mars’ original distance were 217 resp. 210 K.
At Earth’s distance: 268 resp. 259 K.
But an exact computation performing spherical integration might give more accurate results.
I would guess Mars at 1.19 AU would be around -18 C [255 K].
And since about 960 watts per square meter reaches surface when sun is near zenith, the surface could warm to about 86 C [360 K].
But since Mars having 600 watts per square does not warm near 46 C rather instead it about 20 C or more, I tend to think Mars at 1.19 AU would warm to about 60 C.
Or one might wonder how much indirect sunlight is reaching the surface and Mars thin atmosphere would have some convectional heat loss- and particularly the case since Mars would have a low global average temperature of about -18 C.
In greenhouse or parked car, at 1.19 AU at surface when sun at zenith I would expect an air temperature to be about 60 C.
Now Mars at 1.524 AU could be said to be a better place to harvest solar energy as compared to Earth, and if Mars is at 1.19 AU distance it become even a better place- easily far better to harvest solar energy as compared to Earth.
Some suggest that Mars vast amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as compared to Earth, does do much warming due to Mars distance, and 1.19 AU is much closer, so perhaps one also get warming effect from the CO2- and increasing average temperature higher than -18 C.
And not counting the complication that Mars would have less or no frozen CO2 at it’s poles and could have more water vapor than 210 ppm that it has now.
The greenhouse effect on Mars is only about 6 C.
No, it is about -8K.
OK. Whatever. “About 6 C” = 8 C.
Apparently David missed Kristian’s minus sign. David is closer to correct.
Kristian has always made the mistake of using the annual average global mean surface temperature minus the planets effective surface temperature which computes to -8K as Kristian writes.
The correct comparison of Mars effective temperature is with the effective surface temperature which is the fourth root of the annual and globally averaged value of surface T^4. This returns about +5K Mars GHE. This may seem obvious, but the distinction is often not recognized in the literature.
This physics is especially mistaken by Kristian due to continuously self-citing. Kristian needs to cite the established literature, thank you David.
The correct statement is Mars (clear sky) effective surface temperature is ~5K warmer than Mars effective temperature. This increases with a dusty atm. and clouds to ~5.6K as expected.
David Appell says, October 5, 2018 at 5:04 PM:
No-no. MINUS 8 Kelvin. As in negative K. The (globally, annually averaged) T_s on Mars is estimated from comprehensive satellite measurements over several years to lie somewhere in the 201-205 K range, with a mean of 203K. Compare this to the Red Planet’s T_e in space, which is calculated to be ~211 K.
That’s T_s 203 – 211 = – 8 K.
The equivalent quantities on Earth would be:
T_s > T_e => 288 – 255 = + 33 K.
So, positive on Earth, negative on Mars.
Ball4 says, October 5, 2018 at 5:57 PM:
It’s not a “mistake”, troll. It is how it’s done. Same thing on Earth: The globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured surface temps (T_s: ~288K) vs. the globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured All-Sky OLR at the ToA translated via mathematical equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann) into an effective emission temp (T_e: ~255K).
That’s how the “GHE” is defined and quantified, the T_s being higher than the T_e. The “GHE” is specifically defined as a TEMPERATURE EFFECT using a RADIATIVE MECHANISM. You’re confusing the supposed mechanism with the claimed effect, troll. And the “GHE” is specifically all about averages (global and annual), not about extremes. The lunar surface sustains both far higher AND far lower temps than what Earth’s surface does, but its its annually, globally averaged temperature is MUCH, MUCH lower. And that’s what counts.
Hehe, our little house troll is once again just making things up in its little head.
No. During global Martian dust storms, the atmospheric temp rises severely, while the surface temp at the same time DROPS considerably. As expected. Less solar heat to the surface, because the atmospheric dust absorbs most of it on its way in.
https://kundoc.com/pdf-mars-surface-and-atmospheric-temperature-during-the-2001-global-dust-storm-.html
Albedo variability over different time scales is what controls the variability of global temps on a planet. That goes for Earth as well. And we can clearly read from the observational data …
“The globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured surface temps (T_s: ~288K)”
Kristian continues his nonphysical mistake of adding temperatures. This happens to work for earth as the temperature field is not so sparse as Mars, converting each temperature reading to energy & properly doing the addition results in the same Ts answer so that step is simply skipped.
On Mars, the error in adding temperatures shows up due to such a sparse temperature field & causes Kristian to repeat his ridiculous & mistaken Mars GHE of -8K. I’ve shown how to do the GHE computation right physically to come up with the actual Mars GHE of about +5K. Also, Kristian is so nonversed in meteorology, he gets the dust storm avg. surface T change wrong according to more accurate studies.
Kristian really does need to research the field to compare his results to the actual physics. Self-citing is not the way to improve Kristian.
Ball4 says, October 6, 2018 at 2:23 AM:
Ball4 says, October 6, 2018 at 2:23 AM:
Sorry to have to break this to you, troll, but I’m not the one doing the “adding of temperatures”. The Martian satellites and the science teams behind them do. They add, weight and average. They’re the ones who measure the surface brightness temperatures of the planet and then estimate an annual, global average of +/- 203 K. Not me. Don’t you trust the science teams, troll?
Hehe, I’m not “self-citing”, troll. I’m referring to the data from Mars-orbiting satellites, compiled and cited in several scientific papers that I’ve linked to on multiple occasions before on this very blog when discussing this particular topic.
“I’m not the one doing the “adding of temperatures”.”
Actually, you are Kristian with your silly self-cite of -8K for Mars GHE (you didn’t link ayone else for David). That is obviously not correct. The physically correct comparison of Mars effective temperature is with Mars effective surface temperature yielding +5K for Mars GHE which is often quoted in published studies. Where have you linked to any of those?
I didn’t read much of your 1:13am link but note sec. 5.5: “With the rapid increase in atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere during the initial phases of the dust storm..” That one doesn’t discuss Mars GHE that I could find.
I have a question regarding the division of areas.
Is there any reason in the division, and what is it?
Do you mean the atmospheric UAH time series?
Look e.g. at https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
There you see the entire set of them.
24 concern 8 latitudinal zones and their local subdivision in land and ocean. The rest are regional zones: CONUS (US48), USA (US49) and Australia.
Some of us have been discussing the relevance of trends, noise, and specific temperature anomalies now compared to the past. I used Excel to evaluate my hypothesis that trends are somewhat irrelevant for calculating degrees of warming.
Plot y = -sin(pi*x/c) with x from 0 to 90 and c = 45. Calculate the trendline. Now make c = 22.5 and notice the change in trendline. Continue dividing c by 2 and observe how the trendline continues to decrease as the “noise” increases.
For more fun with trends and noise, try plotting the same function with x from 8 to 98. Notice that the trend is even greater than previously, but the starting and ending y values are still equal.
Now look at the UAH data and ask yourself how meaningful any trends are even if they are statistically significant. The most reasonable things to be said are that today’s tropospheric temperatures are less than 0.5 deg C greater than in 1979, same as they have been many times since 1988.
As Bindidon wrote just below, there is a statistically significant linear trend for UAH LT v60 of +0.13 C/decade.
What science explains that?
“Natural variability”.
David,
It is sad that even a person who doesn’t understand how the moon rotates has to explain it to you.
Chic, don’t fret. Hang in there and someday you’ll understand. You’re making progress. At least you know to run off and think about it, before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323117
Chic: do you have any scientific comments, or are you just insultnig people here because you don’t have?
Not for you. It would be a full time job countering your misinformation. Insulting people is against my religion, but I am only human and sometimes cannot resist.
Just goes to show how useless religion is.
Oops – I typed your initials as my name instead of as the intro.
You are forgiven.
Chic,
This is why the CO2 heads become so desperate each and every time someone tells people to look at the actual data instead of the statistically generated trend lines drawn across the data.
They are basically blind to the data. Whenever they look at a temperature curve, they only ever really “see” the overall trend. They don’t really pay attention to the actual data. It’s all about the trend. Because in a rising overall linear trend line, no matter what the data did between the endpoints to produce that particular trend line, what they “see” is the background warming action of increasing atmospheric CO2. That’s it. Subconsciously, an upward trend line to them IS the +CO2 warming.
They will of course furiously deny any suggestion of such deep-seated bias, but it’s pretty obvious to all outsiders (that is, to non-believers), that this is how they operate on a subconscious – and, at times, even conscious – level, and that this is why they’re so obsessed with trends and trend lines and nothing else. It’s the only argument they have and use, after all; watch how they will ALWAYS point and cling to trends and statistics alone when arguing or implying that CO2 is the ultimate driver of ‘global warming’, always seeking to dismiss (oftentimes by attempted ridicule) counterarguments that rather address the data itself.
I agree. It is obvious that trends are the best way to highlight warming, but they useless for understanding why there is warming.
That is not their role.
So, of what use are they?
We only need to look at the data itself, after all, to see that it’s warmer today than in the 70s, and in the 80s, and in the 90s, and even in the 00s. But how is this interesting to anyone, if it doesn’t ultimately leave us wondering WHY? What caused (and is causing) ‘today’ to be warmer than ‘yesterday’?
You’re right. Trend lines can’t tell us. The temperature data alone can’t tell us either.
All-Sky OLR at the ToA vs. tropospheric temps, however, CAN tell us.
The Sun is behind the warming. There are no signs to be found in the available observational data from the real Earth system of a systematic multidecadal “GHE” enhancement as a contributor to the warming.
The data clearly reveals the following causal relationship:
+ASR => +T => +OLR
We only need to look at the data itself, after all, to see that it’s warmer today than in the 70s, and in the 80s, and in the 90s, and even in the 00s. But how is this interesting to anyone
You will see how interest arise when I quote some conversation starters from upthread:
Chic: “The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.”
Richard M: “If you go all the way back to Sept 1979 you only end up with .3 C of warming. At that time people were telling us it has cooled .2-.5 C from the 1940s. Arguably, there’s been no warming in the last 80 years.
Now that’s a real hiatus.”
Richard M: “And, as I showed you elsewhere, we are now exactly the same as Sept. 1996. That is, no warming at all for 22 years.”
Would you write these off as silliness not worth engaging with, Kristian, or would you explain why you think differently?
“I used Excel to evaluate my hypothesis that trends are somewhat irrelevant for calculating degrees of warming.”
Certainly you will fail when using such artificial examples having nothing to do with time series.
“Now look at the UAH data and ask yourself how meaningful any trends are even if they are statistically significant. The most reasonable things to be said are that todays tropospheric temperatures are less than 0.5 deg C greater than in 1979, same as they have been many times since 1988.”
Aha.
1. Please let me answer as do here so often some people having no clue of the problem:
– anomaly in dec 1978: -0.36 C
– anomaly in aug 2018: 0.19 C
By accident is the difference: 0.54 C.
2. Now let us look at the trend.
Trend in C / decade for the period 1978-2018:
0.127 ± 0,01
Thus the linear estimate for 40 years is 0.127 * 4 = 0.51 C.
What is your point, Chic Bowdrie?
1. I’m not sure what problem you refer to.
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 1979: -0.28 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2002: 0.24 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2018: 0.20 C
It is no accident that the difference from 1979 to 2002 is an increase of about 0.52 C and that since 2002, tropospheric temperatures have decreased by 0.04 C.
2. I propose to you that calculating the temperature difference between 1979 and now using a trend serendipitously allowed you to arrive at the same temperature difference as I came up with by simply using actual temperature values.
In addition, you have obscured the biphasic information of a more significant trend from 1979 to 2002 compared to the more recent period.
My point is that a trend doesn’t necessarily mean there was a temperature change as indicated by the data since 2001/2002.
Chic Bowdrie
You write
“-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 1979: -0.28 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2002: 0.24 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2018: 0.20 C”
That is exactly the problem with people
– arbitrarily choosing nine months in three periods of a time series,
– comparing them, and
– claiming ‘Do you see? It’s cooling’.
That makes no sense.
The story you tell looks like this, I can’t change it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/to:2002.99/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003.01/trend/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12
The trend for dec 1979 – dec 2002 is (by accident) the same as the trend for jan 2003 – sep 2018: 0.15 C / decade.
And both subtrends are higher than the trend over the entire period (0.13 C / decade).
By ‘accident’ I mean that if you had chosen another biphase separation time for UAH, or the same for another time series (GISS, RSS etc) you might have obtained completely different results.
Please send a mail to Roy Spencer and he will explain you why your view is not correct when he has some time to spend on. I don’t see how I could convince you.
Blindinon,
I did not write anywhere that it is cooling. We leave that up to Salvatore, don’t we? I claim that it is the same temperature now as in 2001/2002. That’s all.
Did you notice that starting in 2001 there were five years of the most stable temperatures in the whole UAH record? I chose the year 2002 because in the spring of that year, there was a cluster of points where it was easy to estimate their average temperature. Same as the spring of this year and the spring of 1979. Yes I am cherry picking those points on purpose to illustrate my point. Read carefully. My point is that trends do not tell you what the actual temperature differences are.
By showing the trends before and after 2002 are the same, you are emphasizing my point. In the earlier time period, the temperature at the beginning of the trendline was 0.5 C lower than at the end. 23 years of warming! At the beginning and end of the later time period, the temperatures are about the same. No warming in 17 years.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the trendline predicts it?
“Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the trendline predicts it?”
It is no prediction, just a calculation based on existing data.
I like people calling me “Blindidon” just because they think I wouldn’t understand what they say or write!
Bindidon,
My apologies. I did not intend to insert an additional l or change a d to n. Just in a hurry to reply.
Accepted of course!
The so called trend is nothing but an artifact of relatively short data set which starts at the cool period, give it few more years and it will became zero .
The question is, are the trends statistically significant?
Over the entire UAH dataset, they certainly are.
Why, based on physics, should we expect the trend to become zero?
DA, you mentioned “physics”. But you meant “pseudoscience”.
There is NO physics that indicates CO2 can raise the equilibrium temperature of Earth.
Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
Do you think you ask silly questions because you don’t know physics, or because you want to be a clown?
Ger*an: Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
ibid.
As usual, JDH (=Ger*an) won’t say.
(DA, your obsession with Ger*an is touching.)
Do you plan to get even stupider, or just stay at this level?
Chic
As you know, ENSO has a big influence on the yearly average, and is a cycle. That alone makes comparing one year to another meaningless. Add in volcanoes, other ocean cycles, etc. and the only metric worth looking at is the long term trend.
*******
http://cdn.economicsdiscussion.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image200.png
You could compare the peak on the upper left to the trough on the bottom right……what does that tell you? Jack squat.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the long term trend predicts it?
Snape, Chic is quite aware that ENSO and other factors have an impact. Chic seems to be convinced that the noise has been removed from the analysis by deleting selected data.
Somewhere upthread you wrote that all data is noise, IIRC. If that is the case, then where is the signal? If you use least squares linear regression, the signal is a slope. I explained that the slope doesn’t say anything about the endpoints of the data, which are the only two points in a time series that tell you exactly how much change has occurred during a given time interval. For temperature data it is either warmer, colder, or the same. In this context, removing noise is just comparing temperatures at certain time points.
IOW, you grossly misrepresented what I’m convinced about.
Somewhere upthread you wrote that all data is noise, IIRC. If that is the case, then where is the signal?
A signal may be gleaned by calculating a line running through all the data that for which the sum of the square of the distances between each data point (the noise) and the line (signal) is smallest. As in:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
If that line was changed in position or slope, then the sum of the square of each data point would be larger. The is the best “fit” by the ordinary least squares method. It’s not “the truth”, but it at least has statistical value and doesn’t discard any data.
That was a first order polynomial. A 2nd order polynomial has a curve, a 3rd order polynomial has 2 curves and so one. These can be tested against the data to find out which model has the best “fit” to the data.
There are numerous statistical tests to estimate which model best reflects the data (and any signal therein). Here’s one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Another method is to smooth the data (an averaging algorithm) to reduce the noise and look for a signal. The following graph has long term data smoothed with a 13-month average, with a 5-year average (60 months), a 10-year average, and a 30-year average.
https://tinyurl.com/yauwxo4n
I offset them for ease of viewing. Note that information is lost from the ends, as the averages are centred on the year in question. One can easily see a signal in the 30-year (360 month) smooth.
The noise affects the signal (say for a linear trend) more significantly with less data. But the reverse is also true. The noise has a decreasing effect on the signal the more data is used (assuming more or less random distribution). Stats 101.
Here is how a couple of months ‘noise’ affects a (linear trend) signal when a tiny amount of data is used.
https://tinyurl.com/y9tf4dto
And the trend results are:
0.20 C/decade
-0.01 C/decade
-0.22 C/decade
In 2 months the decadal trend has changed half a degree C, from warming to cooling. That’s a very unstable result.
Now see what happens if we use lots of data. I am going to select some really big noise at the end – the 2016 el Nino, and see if the trend changes much by including it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2015.68/trend/plot/uah6/to:2016.33/trend
Barely any change in trend from including one of the biggest bits of ‘noise’ in the record, right at the end of the trend estimate.
The difference?
0.11 C/decade
0.12 C/decade
One hundredth of a degree per decade.
Using lots of data reduces the impact of the noise considerably. Stats 101.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the long term trend predicts it?
It is mid-Spring where I am. Yesterday was quite cold and we had many warmer days in Winter. I’m not just inventing this – this is actually the case (I follow the weather in my area – bit of a hobby).
Eg, yesterday (Friday) had a max temp of 15.6C
The warmest day in July (our mid-Winter month) was almost 10C warmer, at 25.2.
I can definitely feel that temperature difference on my skin.
What does this information tell me about “where I am” in relation to the seasons?
Too little data? The average temp of the entire month of July is currently warmer than the average of the first week of October. I will always be able to find a week’s worth of weather in Winter that is warmer than a week’s worth of Spring in the same year.
I make the comparison to seasons, because this is a “climate change” that everyone experiences and understands.
Using weeks (a cluster of days) to compare seasonal changes over 6 months is analogous to using clusters of months to compare change over 40 years. The signal to noise ratio is not that different.
Chic
Why do you ask? Has anyone implied a trend will cause warming?
Investors discuss trends every day, knowing full well that the trends themselves are not causative. Isn’t that also a given when discussing temperature trends?
Don’t be so stupid, Chic.
Please stop calling people ‘stupid’. Flynn and Robertson are really enough.
I assume there’s math and theory to suppport persistence forecasts.
If I woke up and spotted a raccoon in my backyard, I wouldn’t bet on seeing it again the next morning. If he showed up the next thousand mornings, I would bet a LOT on one more.
Aren’t trends and “persistence” similar ideas?
Is comparing small portions of data a good estimate of overall change? I don’t think so.
UAH 1979 annual av = -0.21 C
UAH 2017 annual av = 0.38 C
That’s a difference of 0.6 C between the first and last complete calendar year of the satellite record.
This despite 1979 ending on an el Nino, and 2017 beginning with a la Nina. (ENSO reference).
Do I think this represents a fair – even conservative – estimate of the overall change?
Absolutely not. Every single year, every single month of data represents the noise, or variability, in the system. Every single month and year is strongly influenced by short-term variability, known and unknown, so comparing one year with another, no matter how one tries to pick the ‘best’ representatives for non-noisy effects, is always going to be compromised by the variability.
And if you’re going to do that, then calculate and honestly include the uncertainty inherent in that estimate.
This is what a linear regression can do. It can calculate the overall change without discarding any data. And it can give you a value for the uncertainty, so you can see if the change is distinct from the usual variability, or if the change is not distinct enough from the variability to say that there has been a change, and if there is change, what the likely range of that change is.
Anyone neglecting the uncertainty – routinely – is selling something.
Of course, a linear regression assumes a linear rate of change when that might not be the case. A linear trend is not by itself a predictor of what is to follow.
But it is a much more robust method of estimating overall change than selecting a handful of data points at or near the end of the entire series, discarding 80-90% of the total data.
You couldn’t be more wrong as I illustrated here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323290
And again and again: you are wrong here, because you base your stuff on a simple(-minded) sine curve, i.e. on all but (temperature) time series.
Chic Bowdrie: please try to learn about statistics, as others try to do.
We all are lay(wo)men here, without exception, starting with those who brazenly name themselves ‘an expert’.
But that is not an excuse to persist in considering
y = -sin(pi*x/c)
a stuff comparable to
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
or the like.
But Chic, any one of us could cherry-pick a handful of months and ‘prove’ completely opposite results. Then we end up arguing about why one choice is superior to another.
All we’re doing is comparing some averaged noise from one year to another. 2002 is an el Nino year, 2018 is a la Nina year. You compared 2 years that are influenced by noise that we know about. There are clearly influences on monthly and anual temps that we don’t know the cause for, because none of the factors we do know about, or any combination of them, correlates 100% with the month to month variability.
Other stuff affects global temps besides ENSO, volcanos, solar, AMO, PDO etc…
We can try to reduce the noise, but we can’t entirely get rid of it. I’ve posted scientific papers doing just that.
But it is a statistical fact that the less data you have, the greater the error (uncertainty) in your results.
A linear trend does not give perfect results, either. Nor does it mean that any trend in the data is necessarily linear.
But the key point is:
A linear trend using all the data will have much less error (uncertainty) than an analysis that uses only 10% or less of the data.
I have declared the uncertainty for the linear trends upthread. So I ask you to reciprocate. Let’s have facts and figures.
What is the uncertainty inherent in your results? How wide are your error bars? How will you calculate that?
pochas…”Yeahbut, latent heat in convective columns doesnt count as radiant flux”.
Good point. Same applies to sensible heat, which is likely what causes what we know as the greenhouse effect.
Concerning this recurrent discussion about climatic anomalies like ENSO and volcanoes and their effect on temperatures in the troposphere, I can only repeat the same stuff.
In 2013, a group of people directed by B. Santer and Cline Bonfils performed a deep analysis of RSS LT data (rev 3.3) together with data related to ENSO and to volcanic eruptions (aerosols etc).
{ The effect of volcanic eruptions on LT temperatures you see when comparing them with the ENSO time series. }
What they found was interesting: extracting all ENSO and volcano influences gave a residual estimate of about 0.9 C per decade, out of at that time originally about 0.12 C.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O24vxFht6IHI6TnPbL9UFN4xtVN5z1jc/view
This is the residual warming we all should talk about: according to Roy Spencer, half natural, half man-made.
My bad: I forget to put the accent stuff into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
before sending. I wanted to write ‘Céline’.
Excusez-moi, Madame…
First of all, I’m curious how natural phenomena cause 7.5 times more warming, but half that is man-made? Although Dr. Spencer’s opinion on CO2 sensitivity is about 1K, I don’t recall any time he claimed half natural, half man-made. Do you have a reference?
I have heard him say that no one knows whether we are in for more or less warming.
Also, do you have any evidence (not counting trends and models) that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures?
Or that man contributes more than 5% of the CO2 production?
“I dont recall any time he claimed half natural, half man-made. Do you have a reference?”
Oh I’m sorry, it is somewhere in one of his many many threads.
The only one I could quickly google for was
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/
“Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)or simply think we ‘don’t know’.”
*
“Also, do you have any evidence (not counting trends and models) that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures?”
Wow Chic Bowdrie! What the heck are you boring me with that damn CO2? Did I ever mention that in any comment?
*
But… this
“Or that man contributes more than 5% of the CO2 production?”
I can’t leave without a little comment.
What do you mean with ‘production’?
Over many thousands of years, natural CO2 sources and sinks perectly compensate.
Volcanoes’ CO2 production ias about 3% of the actual Mankind contribution.
So we can only talk about the rest, can’t we?
From his high pulpit, the preacher rails against the wicked:
“They are basically blind to the data. Whenever they look at a temperature curve, they only ever really “see” the overall trend. They dont really pay attention to the actual data. Its all about the trend. Because in a rising overall linear trend line, no matter what the data did between the endpoints to produce that particular trend line, what they “see is the background”
They’re not wicked. Just confused.
And most importantly, what I’m saying is true.
Yeah!
In comparison with us simple fellows, Grand Master Okulær is a top expert.
Salvatore,
Just wondering how the global SST is going? How does it compare with your benchmark of mid 2017?
It is unbelievable the rise but not due to AGW.
Of course the rise is not due to AGW, any more than the cooler oceans temps were due to a solar influence. We are simply seeing natural variation superimposed over the much slower rise of 0.001C per month.
I wonder, when UAH anomalies rise, will you have the balls to refer to a “warming trend”?
reasonable explanation
It is the same explanation I’ve been giving you for months.
The cooling trend will not continue if overall oceanic temperatures stay above +.3c which is where they are.
It is amazing , and all the sub surface warm water has made it’s way to the surface. I did not think this would occur.
If the long term data looked like this, I would agreed with Kristian…..a trend line would be misleading. It’s clear that whatever caused the uptick initially does not apply to the rest of the period:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/
/
/
But that IS exactly how the plotted temperature data progesses, Snape – a big uptick and then nothing for give or take a decade at a time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/total.png
(Red curve: NINO3.4 SSTa, scaled down and lagged; blue curve: Had.CRUt3 gl)
In detail:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-11.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-21.png
Continue below …
In detail continued:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-31.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/post-step-32.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/1.png
“The modern era of global warming” started in 1976/77, with “The Great Pacific Climate Shift”. The 35 years before that, there was no warming. There was cooling.
And between 1970 and 2013/2014, global temps ONLY rose relative to NINO3.4 SSTa at THREE separate instances – in 1979, in 1988 and in 1998. The ENTIRE rise in global temps from 1970 (1964, really) to 2013/2014, relative to the more or less flat NINO3.4 record, is to be found inside those three years ALONE.
Oops. My “graph” didn’t work. The uptick was supposed to be a smooth incline.
bilybob
“Interesting chart, prefer the traditional line graph it is easier to visualize the data for me.”
I can understand, Nick’s circular sea ice plots are a bit cryptic.
As I wanted to download SIDADS sea ice data anyway, here are some charts for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (extent and area, i.e. pack ice).
The charts show as usual the 12 month sequence absolute value for the recent years, and the 10 year average.
I hope they look more helpful to you.
Arctic extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ixsv5EOHm0sTQlIv5dBtlTWYs4rwkbEh/view
Arctic area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16aqU0jKEVmNztdnfw1wWM5UD2ygKaSe2/view
Antarctic extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Coyr1lA8mysh8CKQjnDGQDGybREYOy8T/view
Antarctic area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cJM3-GTP0NNkEHVQiigm8LFSMGI0ILGj/view
And as Roy Spencer’s web site allows us to publish 5 links, here is the average of all the stuff – north and south, extent and area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tu_1zKfb7F0B1-SA8cfRzSJ6Nn6O3qOt/view
Sources
Arctic:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
Antarctic:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
Look at the site
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
and at the very beginning, you see
If you could look at the Moon orbiting the Earth from above, youd see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. Its always turning, showing us exactly the same face.
The word ‘orbits’ appers bold: my emphasis. It is evident that the author should have written ‘turns’ instead.
The people who want to measure rotation relative to the earth instead of relative to the universe as a whole are stuck in the god-based “earth is the centre of the universe” paradigm. They need to emerge from the middle ages.
bob…”The people who want to measure rotation relative to the earth instead of relative to the universe as a whole are stuck in the god-based earth is the centre of the universe paradigm”.
Maybe you came to the party late. The original statement posed was that the Moon does not turn on it’s axis. That’s true whether you are looking at the Moon from Earth or from anywhere else in the Universe.
There is no angular momentum of the Moon’s circumference about it’s axis. There may be rotation of a coordinate system drawn through the Moon but the rotation is not about its axis.
The coordinate system rotates because the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. However, one end of the system is attached to the Earth via gravity and it is constrained to follow the Moon’s orbit.
“There is no angular momentum of the Moons circumference about its axis.
You claiming it doesn’t make it right. It seems you take every stance possible against established science.
des, as Gordon stated, you arrived at the party late.
The ONLY angular momentum the Moon has is rmv, where r = Earth/Moon distance, m = lunar mass, and v = instantaneous tangential speed.
As Gordon pointed out, its angular momentum about its own center of mass is ZERO.
As I noted, the author is a publisher, not a scientist. He can be forgiven for imprecision.
Whatever spin you must conjure up to keep your pseudoscience alive….
JDH
Yes, that is what Gordon has claimed. And he is WRONG.
Nope, he’s right!
binny…”The word orbits appers bold: my emphasis. It is evident that the author should have written turns instead.”
And the author is equally confused about the rest. Even from above, the Moon cannot turn with an angular velocity if it has one face locked facing the surface.
Draw a line through the Moon and the Earth centres with a perpendicular line intersecting it where the Moon’s inner face meets the line. That intercepting line, the tangent, must be turning around the Moon’s axis to have angular velocity. It’s not turning around the Moon’s axis at all, it’s turning around the earth’s axis.
That’s called an orbit…of the Earth.
Gordon,
Have you tried the broom experiment yet? Are you avoiding answering?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323588
You can also just logic it out and see that the broom does continue rotating after release. It has angular momentum, just as the moon does.
Does Nate know about spears and javelins?
Of course.
I don’t typically swing spears in a circle, you?. If you did, they would continue rotating upon release. Prove me wrong.
When you throw your spear, your arm is not “swinging”?
Learn some physics, pathetic Nate.
You are off on a red herring, as usual.
Rotation was the point of the broom experiment. One so simple, even you might be able to do it-and prove me wrong. But you won’t.
Nate, in your delusional world, no one can prove you wrong. By avoiding reality, you can always believe you’re right.
That’s the advantage you have with being an anonymous clown.
I wonder how many you actually convince….
“By avoiding reality”
By not doing an easy experiment, nor even really thinking about, much less refuting it, you are doing just that.
How bout you, Gordon? Any thoughts on the broom experiment?
Do you even know how to throw a javelin?
More pointless non-sequiturs JD.
It seems David was right about Gordon.
When he has no answers or rebuttal, he just stops responding.
I’m glad you liked that link, LP. Just make sure to read the whole thing.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
JDHuffman or Gordon Robertson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ExFAU2los
Since the two of you both do not understand what tidal locking means. You both think it means gravity acts like a tractor beam and holds objects like a rod would and prevents them from rotating on their axis. That is NOT what it means and it has never meant that. I guess they use a word that confuses the two of your (“locking”). If you ever actually read what it means it might be helpful.
This video shows exactly what is going on in very clear and easy to see demonstrations. You could do it with real objects if you do not accept the reality your eyes can see.
In the first case orbit of the Moon around the Earth the Moon is not spinning at all. Demonstrated by the creator of the simulation.
When the Moon does not spin as it orbits the people on Earth will see all sides of the Moon. Really clear to see.
In the next simulation he has the Moon rotating at a certain rate. He then moves the spinning Moon in an orbit and if he moves the spinning Moon at the same rate he is moving it in orbit, the same side always faces the Earth. He repeats it a few times in case you can’t understand what is going on.
I suggest you view this video a few times until you can finally get what tidal locking means and why the Moon must spin as it orbits.
I think Gordon may see this. JDHuffman is not capable of comprehending the simple reality no matter how many times he is proven wrong.
I am wondering if his strongest supporter will jump in to save his drowning buddy…DREMT. I think JDHuffman has spent his last coin.
norman…”You both think it [tidal locking] means gravity acts like a tractor beam and holds objects like a rod would and prevents them from rotating on their axis”
That is correct and that is what is happening with the Moon.
Your lack of basic mechanics in physics is preventing you seeing that a body that spins about its own axis must have an angular velocity. A body like the Moon with an angular velocity would not sit with one face always to the Earth.
Fix an axis through the Moon, like an x-y axis with the -ve y-axis tied to the Earth by gravitational force. Now watch the axis as it turns around the Earth. The axes will turn but not around the Moon’s axis. They can’t, the axes are tied to the planet by gravity.
The video to which you link is a completely amateur job that is wrong. There is not a hope in Hades that a body like the Moon could be turning exactly once every time it orbits the Earth.
The Moon is tidally locked and it’s being taken for a ride around the Earth by our gravitational field holding it facing one way.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The video to which you link is a completely amateur job that is wrong. There is not a hope in Hades that a body like the Moon could be turning exactly once every time it orbits the Earth.”
A very ignorant statement from someone unable to see with his own eyes. !h
Gordon Robertson
I pressed enter by mistake.
You don’t know what tidal locking means. The video is an excellent example of the concept. Gravity does not lock objects and prevent them from rotation. look at our own solar system. The Sun’s gravity does not lock the planets to face it. You have planets with multiple rotational speeds. You should learn some actual physics instead of assuming you know what you are talking about. Read up on tidal locking. Learn what it means, at this time you are clueless and making up false and misleading statements.
Gordon Robertson
What do you find flawed in the video? Just saying “completely amateur job that is wrong” What does that mean?
It is simple in design which is excellent for people like you. Easy to see. He has a non-rotating moon which he clearly demonstrates. He moves that in an orbit around the Earth and an Earth observer would see all sides. He then has it start to spin at a constant rate and moves it around in orbit and shows just one face to the Earth observer. Why is it wrong? You need to clarify your declaration with some evidence. You have provided zero for you declaration. Explain what is wrong with this video.
Norman, you just can’t seem to keep up with your pseudoscience.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
LMAO. Turnip Boy can’t figure out what is wrong with the animation so he links to some clown who does not even have an astrophysics degree who makes an uninformed statement. Earlier in link, the guy says the moon is always turning, when explaining why we see only one face of the moon. Turning is rotating.
Well SGW, if the Moon is spinning, as your pseudoscience says, but it has stopped spinning, as your pseudoscience says, you must love your pseudoscience.
“If you love your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience!!”
JD can’t even correctly follow writing on a level for the masses, clearly the author writes: “(Moon) is always turning, showing us exactly the same face.” And “Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until (“These bulges acted like handles that the Earths gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place” stopped, forever.”
JD is so easily confused by basic science that JD’s comments are forever entertaining. Especially when JD mistakes a black body for a mirror, that gaffe is truly historic in humor & even complete with a cartoon. More please JD. You make this blog better than SNL.
it appears Ball4 was able to score some more drugs today.
We’ll be treated to his dis-oriented, fragmented, incoherent, nonsense, before the drugs wear off.
Enjoy!
Poor Norman gets easily fooled by computer graphics. He’s probably not very good at video games…or physics…or logic…or reality.
But at least he knows how to type….
JDHuffman
Typical meaningless response from you. Not that I would ever expect you to provide some logical or intelligent ideas. Just an insult that you hope I bite on. Over and over with you. Nothing in way of substance, mostly just taunts and insults from you.
I observe that you did not address anything in the video. You think saying I was “fooled” by computer graphics means something? To you maybe. You are not really saying anything there are you. Just a bunch of babble. I agree with Ball4, you are amusing keep up the funny comments. It is all you seem able to do on this blog.
Norman, a computer simulation is not “proof” of anything. Evidently you have never done any graphic programming. Did you realize a programmer can make cartoon animals talk?
Get some credibility and learn some physics, if you want to have a meaningful debate. Otherwise, you are just howling at the gravitationally-stopped Moon, that your pseudoscience teaches.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
Again, the reading challenged JD makes the mistake of what the author meant by “it”, in this case the author’s correct meaning is:
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until (“These bulges acted like handles that the Earth’s gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place” stopped, forever.”
JD, who writes that blackbodies reflect and race cars don’t turn in the turns should get some credibility by learning some physics, if JD wants to have a meaningful debate. I predict: not. JD does not seek a meaningful debate.
Sorry Ball4, but “it” clearly refers to “rotation speed”.
But, your attempted spin was very creative. They say some artists do their best work under the influence of some mind-altering substance.
ball4…”and race cars dont turn in the turns should get some credibility by learning some physics”
I seriously doubt that you have studied physics given your ridiculous denial of heat as energy and now your inability to tell rotation about an axis from turning in the bend of a road or track.
Gordon, heat is only a measure of particle KE in an object as Clausius defined heat. Clausius was right, you are wrong, heat entity was proven by experiment to have no other physical existence in an object.
When the vehicle driver turns the wheel in your bend of the road, that by definition means the driver rotates the vehicle on its axis.
The moon turns in orbit of Earth, race cars and horses turn in the turns, and black bodies do not reflect any incident radiation despite what JD will have you believe.
JDHuffman
Your analysis of the computer simulation and comparing it to animals talking is not a reasonable analysis. In fact it is not an analysis at all.
Since you refuse to accept anything do the experiments yourself. Take a rod that provides and orbital path around a center. On the end of the rod have a ball attached via bearing (not solidly attached to the rod so the ball is free to spin) and have a motor manually spin the ball at a certain rate. Paint a face on one side of the ball that is facing the center. Have this spinning ball spin one time equal to the rate it takes to orbit and you will have the face always pointing toward the center.
How come Ball4 is correct about your blogging behavior?
norman…” On the end of the rod have a ball attached via bearing (not solidly attached to the rod so the ball is free to spin) and have a motor manually spin the ball at a certain rate. Paint a face on one side of the ball that is facing the center. Have this spinning ball spin one time equal to the rate it takes to orbit….”
We are talking about a moon tidally locked to a larger body not a fantasy created via thought experiment.
Many Interesting comments in this forum and difference of opinions. To me it looks like ocean surface temps are warming steadily. We will most likely have a warmer October than September globally. My guess is aprox +0.3 anomaly for October. Very unlikely this fall temp anomaly will be negative. This means bye bye to any cooling trend, at least for the short term.
Based on just the first 4 days of the month, we are looking at about +0.45. But at my age I have to be wary of premature speculation.
I would guess in next month or two, global average temperature will increase by .3 [or perhaps more]. But in 1/2 year time it will drop to about .0 C
Yeah – that’s what Salvatore said for August this year.
You guys will keep saying it WILL happen. And it will – when we get another strong La Nina or Pinatubo scale eruption. Are you prepared to state in 6 months time if/when the UAH is not near zero that you were wrong?
I would like reason or explanations as to why the entire oceanic surface has warmed so rapidly over the last month?
For the same reason it fell (not so rapidly) at the start of the year. ENSO.
Salvatore
Your problem keeps the same: you are fixated on a climate going up and down with the Sun.
That is, even if the Sun is our only one energy supplier, simply wrong.
Climate goes up and down with what the oceans do with that energy.
–Bobdesbond says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:41 AM
Yeah thats what Salvatore said for August this year.
You guys will keep saying it WILL happen.–
I didn’t say it stay below .0 C for years and years- or it’s gone well below .0 C in recent decades.
And these monthly temperatures are basically, weather and the weather goes up and down. And is largely about the temperature of global ocean surface temperature. Or say top meter of ocean water.
We live in Ice age, a icebox global climate which has average ocean temperature which stays within the range of 1 to 5 C, and currently it’s about 3.5 C and requires centuries and thousands of years to change in temperature. And the temperature of ocean is the global climate. A ocean temperature of 5 C has a high global temperature and 1 C has cold global temperature.
Within a few centuries, our ocean can not warm from 3.5 C to 5 C.
All the fuss we have been concerned about for last century is roughly been about weather.
In terms of global temperature, we have been recovering from the Little Ice Age and over last few thousands of years, global temperature appears to lowering and we had a small up tick from LIA- a warming of the ocean by hundredths of a degree and in coming centuries the ocean temperature, might warm from about 3.5 to about 4 C.
And ocean with average temperature of 4 C is big change from the thousands of years of cooling, and it not clear that this will happen. But if did, it would a change in global average temperature, rather than a mere century long type fluctuations the top tens of meters waters of the ocean waters.
Earth in the past [before our Ice Age] has had ocean temperature of 10 C or more- or Earth without polar ice caps and obviously much higher sea level. But global air temperature is not “hotter” rather earth global air temperature is more uniform.
I was wondering what Mars average temperature be if Mars was at about 1.2 AU rather it’s current position of about 1.5 AU.
And I thought that Mars average temperature at 1.2 AU should be about -18 C.
And if Mars was at same distance from the Sun as Earth [1 AU], I would think the Mars average temperature would be about 5 C.
Now what would be the effect if Mars was at 1 AU and one added ocean water to Mars?
And the scale/size of the ocean would be that if Mars was completely level, the ocean would be global and ocean would be 1000 meters deep.
With Earth, as comparison, if it was completely level the ocean would global and about 3000 meters deep.
Or Mars with this ocean, per square km, would have on average 1/3rd of Earth’s ocean depth.
Some rather old news:
“The finding suggests that ancient volcanic eruptions may have been major sources of water on early Marsand could have created habitable environments.
According to a new study, Martian meteorites contain a surprising amount of hydrated minerals, which have water incorporated in their crystalline structures.
In fact, the study authors estimate that the Martian mantle currently contains between 70 and 300 parts per million of waterenough to cover the planet in liquid 660 to 3,300 feet (200 to 1,000 meters) deep.”
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120626-mars-water-mantle-oceans-meteorites-space-science/
And wiki, Mars ocean hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_ocean_hypothesis
Which has some “maps”/illustrations of what ocean could look like.
And it should be noted that it thought that Mars axis has changed over time periods of hundreds million/ billions of years. {ie the known buried glaciers land forms in equatorial region were at one time in polar regions}.
Or instead of ocean being mostly in arctic polar region a shift in axis, could make the northern polar ocean region be centered at the equator. Or add about 65 degrees to existing axis tilt of 25 degrees.
So add 1000 meter on average depth of water to Mars, increase tilt by 65 degrees and have Mars at 1 AU distance from sun.
And kept same amount of 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere.
But since displacing atmosphere with liquid water and now having a sea level, the air pressure at sea level will be higher than current of 6.0 mbar. Wiki:
” The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth’s mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar). It ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi; 0.30 mbar) on Olympus Mons’s peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi; 11.55 mbar) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. ”
Or as wild guess it could about 10.0 mbars [or more] at the ocean surface.
So what do you think Mars at 1 AU with this ocean, average temperature would be?
So, Mars at 1 AU and roughly with 1/3rd of Earth’s ocean, unlike Earth, it is not dominated by it’s ocean. Or less than 1/2 of surface area is covered by ocean waters.
And such world is more about it’s vast mountains. Some might say due to Mars low gravity, that it has vast mountains, as compared to Earth- but it’s lack of ocean is also reason it’s world with a lot mountains- but the low gravity does allow larger mountains, and in terms of it’s global climate, the low gravity would allow higher mountains of glacial ice.
So, one might ask would there be vast ice caps which could dwarf the Antarctica ice cap?
Due to large amount of ocean water, one could have huge ice caps and still have lots of ocean water.
So most of surface area of planet is near equator- say 35 degree north and south of equator, and the tropical zone is 25 degrees north and south of the equator which is more than 40% of the surface of the planet. And about 40% to 50% of mars tropics is ocean area.
The hellas Basin, Hellas Planitia is currently outside the tropics: “It is centered at WikiMiniAtlas 42.4S 70.5E” -wiki
65 – 42 is 32. Or 10 degrees closer to equator. Or one could have it centered it at equator- let’s have the latter.
So it’s small but deep isolated ocean at centered at equator- roughly 2300 km in diameter: 4.15 million square km.
And Mars tropics: 144.8 million km .4 = 58 million square- 1/12th area of Mars tropics.
And if 40% of tropics is ocean, there is 23 million square km of ocean and Hellas is about 1/5 to 1/6 of these oceans.
With Mars thin atmosphere, the ocean are prevented warming up much as water boils at lower temperature.
And with a clear day, the surface gets a lot of sunlight. Sun at zenith, ground could warm to about 120 C, whereas ocean probably can’t warm as much as 20 C.
And roughly speaking if ground in location where heats to say 60 C during day, one will not have snow, though in shaded mountain side it could be in region of getting this much sunlight and have snow.
Of course Mars has seasons like Earth- summer could ground warming to 60 C, and during winter one can get snow.
And one might ask how much snow could get in the winter, which could related to how close is region to water.
Mars is currently a cold desert, and Earth which 70% covered by ocean has 30% of land areas as desert. Mars at AU 1 with 1/3 of Earth ocean, will still be mostly desert. Lot’s of cold deserts, and deserts in tropics will have cold nights- haven’t determine how cold is cold desert nights, but generally should be colder nights than Earth’s tropical deserts at night.
Or with all that water added, Mars is still a desert planet.
barry…”At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
0.097 and 0.251 C/decade.
Now:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between”
***********
Barry gets out his amateur statistics package and finds a trend where the IPCC found none. That’s why the IPCC declared 1998 – 2012 a hiatus.
Then along came NOAA circa 2015, with their cheating and their fudging, changing the traditional method of finding the SST to a method that showed warming. Of course, now the cheaters at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut show a warming trend during that period.
And Barry agrees with their cheating.
“Barry gets out his amateur statistics package and finds a trend where the IPCC found none.”
Quoting the IPCC
“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 – 2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] C per decade…”
Quoting myself:
“Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)”
What were you saying, Gordon?
Then along came NOAA
I didn’t use NOAA data, I used Met Office data.
Read properly before you post and avoid spouting nonsense.
barry…”Quoting the IPCC
The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] C per decade”
Based on the error margin, the IPCC called it a warming hiatus. The error margin reveals the trend could have been cooling.
I don’t see why you can’t just use the IPCC ‘hiatus’.
Besides, a visual scan of the UAH red-running average makes it clear that no significant warming took place.
barry…”My error margin also reveals the trend could have been cooling”
Then get off your denial and admit there was a hiatus from 1998 – 2012 as the IPCC claimed. Then try to explain that flat trend within the context of your overall trend from 1979 – present.
But Gordon, the error margin also delivers a potential warming trend, which is also statistically the more likely result.
But no strong claim can be made about a trend for the period because the trend estimate statistically non-significant.
Failing to disprove the null (no trend) does not thereby prove the null.
I’ve explained what I think about the period many times, most recently here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323501
Can you explain why, when you think the IPCC is BS, you nevertheless want everyone to bow down before their use of the word ‘hiatus’?
My error margin also reveals the trend could have been cooling. My calcs were quantitatively similar and qualitatively the same as the IPCC.
The point I was making upthread is that the ‘pause’ is not a statistically verified phenomenon. Chic defined the pause in relation to a prior warming “trend,” and that was the basis of my argument.
It’s odd to see you arguing for deference to the IPCC when you think it is illegitimate.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?
If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.
Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998
Figuring the poster meant GISS global, I just worked with the land + ocean data.
1960 to 2017 trend = 0.16 C/decade
1998 – 2012 trend = 0.09 C/decade
Now with 1998 lying on the 1960 – 2017 trend line
1998 – 2012 trend = 0.13 C/decade
binny…”Some stoopids even think they are so genial that they can argue Einstein is wrong with relativity”.
I know your English comprehension may be challenged since you are a Frenchman trying to speak German and English. Would be nice if you read what was written once in a while.
I have not challenged Einstein on GTR per se, I have claimed he is wrong about time dilating and lengths changing due to observations of a human observer on one reference frame viewing motion on another.
I learned basic relativity decades ago based on a translation of axes. The GTR offered by Einstein, based on the Lorentz tranforms, is not much different with the exception of the inclusion of the speed of light. He admitted that himself.
My beef with Einstein is that he presumed time is not absolute and that it can vary. That is absurd since time is DEFINED based on the angular velocity of the Earth.
I am guessing that in the time of Einstein, time was not as formally defined. Even when I attended university, time was never discussed. It was not till I read a transcribed dialog between Jiddu Krishnamurti and physicist David Bohm that I received insight into the fact that time is an illusion on which we humans organize our memory.
We order our thoughts automatically in chronological order. Past and future exist nowhere but in human thought.
Time has no existence outside of the human mind and I cannot begin to understand how Einstein could have missed that. Mind you, in the days of Einstein, psychology was in its infancy with Freud breaking ground with the truth about the human mind. He realized that humans are driven by unconscious processes and not by ‘will’. It’s possible that Einstein was not privy to the real meaning of time and I think that applies to many scientists today.
If you read his GTR, he begins by using accelerations rather than forces to determine his thought experiment of a person floating in a box in space. From there, he based his theory on acceleration which has a time component that cannot vary. He actually defines time as the hands on a clock. No one who understood the meaning of time could have made such a statement.
He allowed it to vary and to this day there are top level scientists claiming he made a mistake my assuming that. One of them is a leading authority on time.
Time has no existence outside of the human mind
Proof please.
bob…”Time has no existence outside of the human mind
Proof please.”
*********
I have given it to you in detail. Time was defined based on the rotational period of the Earth. As such, it does not exist. The rest related to past and future exists only as memories in the human mind.
I might ask you for scientific proof that time exists as a real phenomenon.
“That is absurd since time is DEFINED based on the angular velocity of the Earth.”
This is wrong on TWO counts!
1) Any definition based on the rotation of earth has long been superseded by other definitions that are more precise and more universal.
2) You are actually describing a definition of a specific *unit* of time, not a definition of time itself. Time existed long before the earth was formed, and time will exist long after the earth not longer exists.
tim…” You are actually describing a definition of a specific *unit* of time, not a definition of time itself. Time existed long before the earth was formed, and time will exist long after the earth not longer exists”.
Where is this time, where do I find it? How do I demonstrate it and how can I prove, using the scientific method, that it exists?
What you are dealing with is a fundamental issue with awareness. That is not intended as a slight, it is basically the human condition.
If you go back to the time of Jesus, which we have marked as 0 AD and you consider what has happened in the physical universe since, do you seriously think a real phenomenon called time has changed?
We know there have been physical changes. Mountains have eroded, sea levels have altered, climates have changed, people have been born and passed on, but where is this thing called time?
Essentially, the physical environment of Jesus, 2000+ years ago, is the same environment we experience today. There is no intervening dimension called time. There is no physical dimension between the two environments.
The only reality is ‘now, the past and future are illusions peculiar to the human mind.
You are talking as if time is a dimension that changes through the years. The only thing that changes is memories in the human mind. The human memory keeps a log of events that we call time.
I would love to know how Einstein saw time. His good friend, physicist David Bohm, is on record as stating that humans invented time.
“He actually defines time as the hands on a clock.”
It would be more accurate to say Einstein defined a “clock” as a device that changes in some predictable way as time passes. So if you make an accurate clock, it measures time. That “clock” could be sand flowing through an hourglass; or a candle slowly burning down; or spring-wound set of gears moving some hands around the face of a clock; or a pendulum; or a vibrating quartz crystal running your digital watch; or oscillations of atoms in an atomic clock; or even your body aging.
Any of these could be calibrated to any standard you choose. We historically chose to calibrate time to the rotation of the earth; subdivided into hours, minutes, and seconds. Now we choose atomic clocks, since
1) the earth slows down, so we would have to continually redefine how long “1.00000000 seconds” lasts — and consequently continuously redefine things like Planck’s Constant, Coulomb’s Constant, and even the meter.
2) it is handy to be able to define any units of measure independent of a specific object (that could change or even be destroyed).
The main point is that we can build a set of accurate clocks that tick off precisely 1 second in 1 second (calibrated to the rotation of the earth if you like). In 24 hr, each clock will read 24 hr. It is possible to build a set of clocks that will remain within about a second of each other after running for a billion years (which of course, is much more consistent than the period of the earth).
And if you fly a few of those clocks around the world in one direction, and fly some around the world in the other direction, and keep a few on the ground, the three sets will read different times (but the ones within each set will be in sync with each other)! One set will be ahead of the earth’s time, the other behind earth’s time. This happens consistently — and it happens precisely in accordance with the calculations of relativity. (and they all run at the same rate once they are placed together again).
Yes, time ACTUALLY passed differently for the three sets of clocks. Time is INDEED relative to motion.
tim…”And if you fly a few of those clocks around the world in one direction, and fly some around the world in the other direction, and keep a few on the ground, the three sets will read different times (but the ones within each set will be in sync with each other)! One set will be ahead of the earths time, the other behind earths time. This happens consistently ….”
You stated clearly above that time is created by humans, whether it’s a sand-filled hourglass, a sundial, or a mechanical/electronic clock.
ALL OF THEM ARE BASED ON THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH.
There is no clock of which I am aware that is not based on the rotation of the Earth.
TIME DOES NOT EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF THE HUMAN MIND.
In fact, over the centuries, we humans have built the regularity of day and night, due to that rotation, into our psyches, as memory. That is time to most of us, the information stored in human memory. Since our thoughts are ordered by chronological events, time and thought are inter-related.
A clock is a machine. It generates time, it does not measure it. There is no reason whatsoever why electronic clocks on the surface should ever be out of sync with clocks in terrestrial space, no matter which way they orbit the Earth.
I can see a mechanical, spring-wound clock being affected slightly by a lowered gravitational field but that has nothing to do with the inference in GRT that time can dilate due to relative motion.
Einstein claimed that a clock at the Equator would show a different time than a clock at either pole.
How???
When I claimed time is a sub-division of the Earth period, I did confuse the period with angular velocity. The period of the Earth’s rotation is the interval between two sunrises. Obviously, someone standing on the Equator is moving nearly 1000 mph whereas someone on a latitude close to the NP is moving at feet per hour.
It would take exactly the same time, based on our definition of time, for a person on the Equator to complete one rotation as it would someone standing a few feet from the NP. If a person was standing a few feet from the NP on the Greenwich Meridian, it would take 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds for that person to rotate around the pole. Same at the Equator.
I was wrong to equate time to distance without specifying the latitude. However, Einstein was wrong to infer that the much faster angular velocity at the Equator would affect time wrt to much slower angular velocity near the NP.
An observer from space, using our time would note that a person on the Equator took exactly the same time to complete one rotation as a person standing a few feet from the NP.
A person standing on the Equator on the Greenwich Meridian with a clock synced to GMT would read exactly the same time as a person standing at the NP (hopefully on ice) holding a clock synced to GMT.
There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
“There is no reason whatsoever why electronic clocks on the surface should ever be out of sync with clocks in terrestrial space”
Nature says you are wrong. Clocks flying around the earth DO tick at different rates. Clocks in orbit DO tick at different rates. The half-life of moving muons is different than the half-life of stationary muons.
So clearly there MIST be a reason, because it happens.
tim…”Nature says you are wrong. Clocks flying around the earth DO tick at different rates. Clocks in orbit DO tick at different rates”.
And does that change the rotational period of the Earth, upon which the second is based?
How do you explain that the clocks mentioned, based on the second, change time, yet the second upon which they are based is fixed to the Earth’s rotation?
You could probably get a spring/gear based clock to run slow by putting it in a deep freeze. You could get a digital clock to run fast by putting it in an environment that is too hot for it, or too cold for it.
Does that change the length of a second, which is a fraction of the period of the Earth’s rotation?
Clocks of any kind should not have been the basis of GRT, it should have been the absolute second. GRT would still work fine without the nonsense about time dilation, lengths changing, and the sci-fi of space-time.
Furthermore, the human mind should not have been relied upon to make observations of a separate reference frame from another. The human mind is not capable of such an observation, it distorts what is seen.
I remember as a child going on train trips in Scotland. I would wonder at the telephone poles going past and how, as the train sped up, they got closer and closer.
Anyone knows intuitively that the poles are not getting closer, it’s an illusion crated by the human mind. Apparently that illusion has not been figured out by those who support GRT.
“A person standing on the Equator on the Greenwich Meridian with a clock synced to GMT would read exactly the same time as a person standing at the NP (hopefully on ice) holding a clock synced to GMT.”
Ah! But you have missed one critical fact. Yes, you could build a clock synced to read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth at the equator. You could build a clock synced to read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth at the north pole.
But if you bring the clock from the pole to the equator, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth. And if you bring the clock from the equator to the pole, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth. One will run ever so slightly fast and the other will run ever so slightly slow. Neither will now read exactly 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions. Or stated another way, 1.0000000000 seconds at the poles is not the same as 1.00000000 seconds at the equator.
These are experimental facts. People have done similar experiments. People do the experiment all the time with GPS satellites.
Time really DOES run at different rates due to gravity and speed.
tim…”But if you bring the clock from the pole to the equator, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth”.
Why not? It’s the period of rotation upon which time is based, which is exactly the same at the North Pole as at the Equator.
If you could find the Greenwich meridian at the NP, and you stood on it facing Greenwich, you should turn through 360 degrees in 24 hours (4 minutes less). Even though you could walk around the Pole itself in seconds, it takes the Greenwich meridian intercept at the NP a full day to rotate just as it does where the meridian intercepts the Equator.
I hope you laugh at this, I think it’s a hoot.
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/definition-of-time/
also…
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/
From link 1:
“Definition of Time
There is no one simple definition of time
Time is something we deal with every day, and something that everyone thinks they understand. However, a compact and robust definition of time has proved to be remarkably tricky and elusive.
Short Definitions
Among the many short, snappy definitions of time that have been put forward are:
-what clocks measure (attr. to physicists Albert Einstein, Donald Ivey, and others)
-what prevents everything from happening at once (physicist John Wheeler and others)
-a linear continuum of instants (philosopher Adolf Grnbaum)
-a certain period during which something is done (Medical Dictionary)
-a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Tim
I always enjoy your comments!
******
I would define time as the comparison of one motion to another.
But that begs the question, “what is motion?”
And that’s the rub…..motion can only be defined using time. (It takes time for an object to move from one location to another)
Very confusing.
BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors
“Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the worlds most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors and freakishly improbable data that it is effectively useless.”
https://tinyurl.com/yakrete9
And paper behind paywall- and costs $8
And Kristian from about month ago:
“Why there is no reason for you to trust the official global temperature records ”
https://tinyurl.com/ya94v6t2
Governments tend to lose billions of dollars as routine matter, governments should not be expected to keep records of anything.
Nor should one trust wordpress to post anything- try again, again .
Oh, forget a posters comment in the first link:
Greg Goodman October 7, 2018 at 6:26 am
“It is nonsense to mix land and sea data as an average , especialy if you think this may tell you something about the supposed heating effects of IR radiation.
TEMPERATURES OF DIFFERENT MEDIA ARE NOT FUNGIBLE.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
Land ans sea water have a heat capacity which differ by a factor of two, meaning land warms faster. Adding the two to get an average biases to result to warm faster than a proper energy based calculation.
Anyone who does not understand that should not be working on AGW.
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
Kudos to John McLean for doing this work and managing to get it accepted as his thesis. Well done.”
I didn’t think of that before, but also it seems the greenhouse gases “warming effect” should have some difference between ocean and land- and just because of difference heat capacity.
Or heat capacity makes a difference be even if a surface had same heat capacity difference surfaces should warm and cool at different rates from various “forcings” [including sunlight – even different kinds [intensities] of sunlight].
Hahaha. As usual the skeptics here exhibit no skepticism whatsoever when they find some news they like.
Oh no, they soberly declare “BOMBSHELL!!”
There will be hundreds of comments on WUWT about it, and less than 1% of those commenting will Have read the report (like gbakie). An even smaller fraction will subject the report to any actual scrutiny.
But some people will. So for those not willing to cough up the money to unpaywall it, we will have dueling blog reports.
The bombshell would be if they actually corrected every mistake and recomputed then found the median global near surface T to have materially changed. If the work did so, then the result would be in the title & is not.
The 3 times skeptics did that and got the work peer-reviewed they came up with results extremely similar to the official data sets.
But skeptics don’t seem to remember that this happened.
Beg pardon – only 2 of those efforts were submitted for peer-review.
barry…”Hahaha. As usual the skeptics here exhibit no skepticism whatsoever when they find some news they like”.
No, barry, it’s when someone reveals some basic physics that has been entirely missed that we skeptics enjoy the revelation.
You alarmists, on the other hand, especially you number crunchers, rush off to see if the article has been peer reviewed.
It had never occurred to me that the temperature of ocean water should not be equated to the temperature of air over land. It’s a brilliant insight and proves once again to me that I should always be skeptical of any science. All is never as it seems.
If you want to compare parcels of air then you should measure the air temperature above the ocean then find out how it affects land air temperatures. We already know that ocean air when contacting certain coastal areas makes them much warmer than air over land far from the ocean.
I have never seen the temperature of sea water related to the temperature of the air at the same height above the ocean as weather stations located above land.
No, barry, it’s when someone reveals some basic physics that has been entirely missed that we skeptics enjoy the revelation.
Rally, and what basic physics was revealed in Macleans’s paper?
You didn’t read it, did you? Your comment was just the usual grouchy waffling.
And it seems illustrious WUWT commenter Greg Goodman can’t read his own source. He says:
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
His source says:
These are typically derived by weighting a global land average and global SST average according to the 30:70 land-sea geographical surface area ratio.
Earth’s geographical surface is 30% land and 70% ocean.
This is unrelated to what Greg Goodman was discussing.
I like repeating that ocean area covers about 70% and land covers about 30%. And global average temperature of ocean surface is 17 C and land is about 10 C.
And also note that 15 C is cold and 10 C is colder.
That we are living in Ice Age and with no possible chance of reaching a hothouse climate- though a hothouse climate is not hot, but rather is climate in which plants and animals have thrived- globally.
Though it’s not as good for life which needs hot and dry climate- those who do best in deserts or only living on barren glaciers. Because there less percentage of land of area of barren ice fields or hot dry deserts.
Or if don’t like lots and lots of forests, or maybe perhaps one must have or one loves the vast grasslands, you could prefer the ice age. Which is good news, due to inescapable situation that we going to live in an Ice Age for many [perhaps hundreds, even thousands] of generations.
This is unrelated to what Greg Goodman was discussing.
It is exactly what he was talking about when he said:
Land ans sea water have a heat capacity which differ by a factor of two, meaning land warms faster. Adding the two to get an average biases to result to warm faster than a proper energy based calculation.
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
They ARE weighted at less than 50% of SST, just by factoring area.
This gives a good average of overall global surface change.
Do you understand that using monthly anomalies to a common baseline to estimate change eradicates the problems with using absolute temps? If not, you have no business commenting on this subject.
barry continues his display of total reading comprehension failure.
Heh, this gets better.
The paper is “published” in a ‘publishing house’ set up by Jo Nova, an Australian strident climate skeptic. WUWT gave the impression it came from a peer-reviewed journal, while electing to omit this interesting background.
Peer review and objectivity? From their ‘about’ section.
“Robert Boyle Publishing is not a conventional publishing house. We only publish scientific material other journals are unlikely to publish, but that we think should be published…
We are well aware of how peer review can be abused by both authors and reviewers. We solicit reviews only when necessary, and we expect reviewers to justify their comments. We regard reviews as advice that we can heed or reject, because ultimately it is the wider audience that determines the merit of a paper.”
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/submitting-a-paper/
barry…”WUWT gave the impression it came from a peer-reviewed journal, while electing to omit this interesting background”.
Once again, peer review is not, and never has been, a requirement of the scientific method. With today’s Internet, and the ability of scientists to publish directly to the Net, we no longer need biased peer review journals filtering what other scientists should see.
Let’s face it, much of the peer review system is corrupt.
Publishing is a market. And one has scientific journals to fill a market need of scientists- who have limited audience and are not limited by the number words that in an article.
But we now live in the Information Age.
Yeah that works in a kind of liberal-arsed “every idea is as beautiful and as valid as another” kind of way, but I prefer a higher bar.
Climate skeptics, championing the cause for abolishing rigorous standards.
No need, guys, we already have the internet.
–barry says:
October 8, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Yeah that works in a kind of liberal-arsed every idea is as beautiful and as valid as another kind of way, but I prefer a higher bar.–
The higher bar is only the quality of editors of the publishing house. And has nothing to do with inherent “quality” of authors of the work.
So you have newspaper with reporters and higher bar is the quality of editors, rather the reporters.
One can say and is commonly said that a good editor, improves the quality of work the reporters.
So the difference is science mags editors are suppose to improve the
“science writing” of the scientists, or there is no difference.
Of editors can also select their writers- hire or not hire [or work for a writer and not work for a writer].
“The higher bar is only the quality of editors of the publishing house”
You are here talking about the ‘publishing house’ that published this ‘report’, not formal journals.
Formal journals pass submitted papers to external reviewers as a matter of principle, and heed the advice on whether to publish. In the marketplace of ideas, papers are submitted to consumers to be tested and verified.
It’s a much lower bar with Robert Boyle Publishing. The editors don’t constrain themselves to pass papers to external reviewers, and if they do, they do not commit to heeding their advice. With them, the marketing company determines whether the product is good.
Obviously, that’s a lower bar than peer review.
Circus tricks aside, if the Met Office data set is so bad, why does it agree with NOAA, GISS, the Japanese global data set and the ones produced by skeptics – BEST and Jeff Condon/Roman M’s stirling effort?
This ‘bombshell’ smacks heavily of bulldust.
Here is a comparison of Met Office global data set with UAH.
https://tinyurl.com/ydawbljh
The year to year variability is virtually identical. The difference between the trends is 0.04 C/decade.
The year to year variability is virtually identical.
No.
For the detrendes series, the tropospheric amplification is 1.4 in agreement with theory. This means that the divergence of trends brought to surface is about 0.08 C per decade. It’s probably a measure of the impact of UHI on global surface indices (not global surface temperature !).
Theory? I’m comparing observations.
The year to year variability is the up and down. The wiggles.
They are almost perfectly of the same sign every year, with some variation in the amplitude.
If the Met Office data is irreparably bad, UAH must also have serious problems.
And for trend the Met Office is in closer agreement with NOAA, GISS, BEST (made by skeptics), and the global temperature construction from raw data made by skeptics Roman M and Jeff Condon, which has a higher trend than the MET office.
If they agree – even the skeptic efforts – and the base data are different, how wrong have the Met Office got it?
Interestingly, the Japanese global data set is closer to UAH than the rest. That may be because it doesn’t have as much coverage of faster warming areas, such as the Arctic, Africa and Asia.
…with some variation in the amplitude.
Yes. This is what is consistent with theory. Tropospheric amplification is expected due to the change in absolute humidity with temperature.
If the Met Office data is irreparably bad, UAH must also have serious problems.
No, not necessarily. What makes you believe that?
And for trend the Met Office is in closer agreement with NOAA, GISS, BEST…
Yes and so ? The problem lies in the stations’ records. To the extent that anthropogenic perturbations are not corrected, there is no reason it to be otherwise.
Me: “If the Met Office data is irreparably bad, UAH must also have serious problems.”
You: No, not necessarily. What makes you believe that?
The ‘report’ linked says that the Met Office record is completely useless. It is deemed “unfit for purpose.” It is framed as a complete balls up, a write off – not as ‘slightly wrong.’
But there is extraordinary similarity between it and UAH. The difference in trend is small and the year-to-year variation is near identical in sign. They correlate very closely.
So either UAH must be similarly flawed, or the problems in the Met Office data are not nearly as bad as claimed.
If the comparison between those data sets looked like this
https://tinyurl.com/y7xl2sje
Then I could see how the Met Office data was disastrously bad, and UAH might be a great data set.
Instead, they compare like this:
https://tinyurl.com/ydawbljh
If there is a massive problem with Met Office data set, then there must be a very similar problem with UAH.
Or else the problems are mightily exaggerated. This is what I think.
Me: “And for trend the Met Office is in closer agreement with NOAA, GISS, BEST”
You: Yes and so ? The problem lies in the stations’ records.
The station records are handled differently by each group. the results are virtually identical.
The station data can be subdivided into subsets of as little as 60 stations globally and the results remain nearly identical (as long as the coverage is a good spread).
The station records can be done with only rural, or a subset of rural, only airports or a subset of airports, or only high altitude and a subset of high altitude and the results are nearly identical.
Urban heat island doesn’t seem to have much impact. Airports don;t seem to be much different from the global result or from the rural result.
Different entire data sets can be used – GSOD, or the GHCN daily instead of monthly. The results are very similar.
The data has been tested multitudes of ways. The results remain very stable.
I’m going to bet that McLean did not go the extra yard and compute a global temperature data set based on the stations he thought were clean. Had he done so, he would have made a positive contribution.
The data have been tested multiple ways. The adjustments undergo rigorous testing for bias. Skeptics have done their own global data sets.
When will someone come up with a global temp record that is significantly different from the many already out there?
Probably never, because these ‘issues’ are overblown by certain vested interests.
The difference in trend is small
It’s all relative. I believe I have shown you that TLTs must be treated as a proxy for surface temperature and take into account the phenomenon of tropospheric amplification. The resulting divergence is 0.08 C per decade. It may be little, but it is also the order of magnitude of the supposed effect of CO2.
The station records are handled differently by each group.
No, not really differently. The techniques used are all based on the conservation of short-term trends.
Urban heat island doesnt seem to have much impact.
The bias of cooling jumps in the raw temperature series suggests that the UHI effect is greater than 0.05 C per decade. Comparison with proxies, and in particular with TLTs, shows that UHI increases station trends by about 0.15 C per decade in the Northern Hemisphere.
I believe I have shown you that TLTs must be treated as a proxy for surface temperature and take into account the phenomenon of tropospheric amplification.
In this subthread? No, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it. And your point is unclear. Are you speaking of the supposed tropospheric ‘hotspot’? Are you speaking of amplified monthly variability as in ENSO events?
The resulting divergence is 0.08 C per decade.
I don’t know what this means. That the TLT product should be warming more than the surface? But it also contains some stratospheric interference, which is a cooling influence.
Also, you are implying that UAH is the ‘best’product out there, when this is merely an assumption. RSS is closer to the Met Office record than UAH. All data sets have issues, and the satellite data sets are no exception.
Me: “The station records are handled differently by each group.”
No, not really differently. The techniques used are all based on the conservation of short-term trends.
I don’t know what this means. The Met Office has a different land station data set from GISS and NOAA. BEST have their own, much larger data set. The Met Office data set is not infilled, NOAA and GISS are. The Met Office, GISS and NOAA adjust individual station data where agorithms determine discontinuities. BEST treats a discontinuity as a separate station.
The bias of cooling jumps in the raw temperature series suggests that the UHI effect is greater than 0.05 C per decade. Comparison with proxies, and in particular with TLTs, shows that UHI increases station trends by about 0.15 C per decade in the Northern Hemisphere.
Again, you are assuming that the TLT product is the gold standard. Even so, RSS has similar trends to surface.
If UHI was a significant influence that should become apparent comparing rural and urban temp trends. There’s no significant difference.
If the data were that bad, multiple subsets of 60 or a hundred stations should have strong trend divergence from each other. They don’t.
You say it’s all relative. I think the interminable skeptic criticism of the global temp records is a function of motivated thinking, not rigorous analysis.
I advise you to put aside your preconceived ideas if you want to understand something about this.
I told you just a little bit higher that the tropospheric amplification was 1.4 based on the detrended series. You can check it yourself.
But it also contains some stratospheric interference, which is a cooling influence.
This does not change anything in the measure where the coefficient is calculated on the basis of observations.
All data sets have issues, and the satellite data sets are no exception.
Yes and that’s why we must use the maximum of possible sources. UAH is consistent with proxies, Crutem is not at all.
The Met Office, GISS and NOAA adjust individual station data where agorithms determine discontinuities. BEST treats a discontinuity as a separate station.
It’s exactly the same !!!
If UHI was a significant influence that should become apparent comparing rural and urban temp trends.
Not at all. The trend depends on the progression of perturbations and not on their absolute values.
If the data were that bad, multiple subsets of 60 or a hundred stations should have strong trend divergence from each other.
No, if the cause is the increase in anthropogenic perturbations, this cause is related to the increase in consumption and urbanization. This progression is relatively homogeneous over samples of 60 stations.
BEST found “no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”.
https://tinyurl.com/ya8czkcv
Svante, Without interest, it’s just a joke. Study based on the comparison of stations according to the rural / urban classification whereas what one seeks is the evolution of the perturbations with time !!!
THe UHI effect has not impacted the temperature rise of the oceans. All agree that land temperatures should warm faster than oceans, and they are rising somewhat faster.
When looking at temperature rise by continent, we see that warming on all the continents accelerated at the same time ~ 1975.
Here is Africa:
https://tinyurl.com/yaqq9osw
and Europe:
https://tinyurl.com/yaegxclz
Clearly the UHI should have impacted Europe well before Africa.
All agree that land temperatures should warm faster than oceans, and they are rising somewhat faster.
Under the effect of CO2? No, not everyone thinks so. Phil Jones does not think so, for example. There is in fact no reason that the shift exceeds a few months. Trends should be similar. We see that very well in the medium frequencies.
When looking at temperature rise by continent, we see that warming on all the continents accelerated at the same time ~ 1975.
It depends on the places, the origin lay between 1975 and 1990. Yes, it is striking and general. So what ? This is not what is to be attributed to UHI. UHI causes a background increase of about 0.15 C per decade generaly since somewhere in the first half of the twentieth century.
Phi, you’re going to have to clarify a few things. They are not clear as you write them.
I told you just a little bit higher that the tropospheric amplification was 1.4 based on the detrended series. You can check it yourself.
What do you mean “amplification?” Of trend? Of variability? You need to be more specific. When you’re clearer about what the 1.4 value applies to,then you can explain how it is derived.
If, as it seems to be, you mean greater variability, this is not going to necessarily impact the trend. There is a whole lot of assertion from you without showing any work.
Me: “But it also contains some stratospheric interference, which is a cooling influence.”
This does not change anything in the measure where the coefficient is calculated on the basis of observations.
Again, not enough information. Can’t parse word salad.
Me: “All data sets have issues, and the satellite data sets are no exception.”
Yes and thats why we must use the maximum of possible sources. UAH is consistent with proxies, Crutem is not at all.
What proxies?? You are making a bunch of assertions without any substance. Do you mean radiosondes? Or what?
Its exactly the same !!!
No, Phi, CRUTEM is a different data set to GHCNv4. BEST uses a much larger database – an order of magnitude larger than the Met Office, and only BEST treats jumps in the data by creating a new station ID at each break.
At this point I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
Me: “If the data were that bad, multiple subsets of 60 or a hundred stations should have strong trend divergence from each other.”
No, if the cause is the increase in anthropogenic perturbations, this cause is related to the increase in consumption and urbanization. This progression is relatively homogeneous over samples of 60 stations.
Word salad. The validity or otherwise of observed global temperature observations and trends has nothing to do with with causes of change. Nothing at all.
That last comment leads me to conclude that your reasoning is motivated, and that this is why your comments are peremptory, incoherent, and now remote from the topic.
Your preconceived ideas make you blind and prevent you from understanding simple reasoning.
Tropospheric amplification means that for a given variation of the surface temperature, you will have a greater variation in altitude. You can evaluate this amplification on the detrended series so that a possible linear bias does not distort the result. There is no reason to assume that what is valid in the short term is not valid in the long term. I remind you that this is based on a well-understood physical phenomenon.
As this amplification factor is calculated on the basis of the variations observed, the greater or lesser influence of the stratosphere is indifferent.
What proxies?? Yes, radiosondes, glaciers, ocean level, dendro, snow, etc.
For global indices, I told you that it was the same because the different techniques are all based on short-term trends conservation. Whether the jumps are corrected at one stage or another does not change the result.
The validity or otherwise of observed global temperature observations and trends has nothing to do with with causes of change.
I do not see what you mean. If the cause of the trend is a measurement defect (eg UHI effect), of course this impacts the validity of the global indices.
“It depends on the places, the origin lay between 1975 and 1990. Yes, it is striking and general. So what ? This is not what is to be attributed to UHI. UHI causes a background increase of about 0.15 C per decade generaly since somewhere in the first half of the twentieth century.”
It is striking and a universal pattern. Most of the continents show essentially a flat trend in the prior decades. How is that consistent with your made-up UHI trend?
In particular, in Europe and the US, the UHI ought to have been very significant during periods of largest population growth and construction periods, 50s-70s. While in China, Africa, India should have been later. Is that evident? Nope.
UHI doesnt explain observed ocean temp rise and OHC rise.
Land, with lower heat capacity than ocean, heats faster and temps should rise faster for GHG forcings. It is quite standard. Deep ocean warming is entirely consistent with this.
Hard to get rid of ready-made ideas. Isn’t it ?
UHI doesnt explain observed ocean temp rise and OHC rise.
Indeed, then?
What is important is that there is no significant divergence expected between SST and land surface temperatures. Once again, this is confirmed in the mid frequencies.
How is that consistent with your made-up UHI trend?
For example like this: http://oi67.tinypic.com/2wpr0j7.jpg
Your plot shows no difference between thermometers and proxies before 1970.
a. This shows that again you trust proxies more than thermometers, without justification.
b. There is no UHI before 1970? Why would that be?
“What is important is that there is no significant divergence expected between SST and land surface temperatures. ”
Says who?
Never heard of RC circuit?
So long as there is leakage of heat between surface water and deep ocean (and there is), oceans should lag land.
a. There are many justifications. There is even one on the graph, consistency with TLT trend.
The bias of the jumps in the series of raw temperatures is another and I have already mentioned a few other consistent proxies.
b. The origin of the divergence is rather 1940.
oceans should lag land.
Are you blind and deaf? I already told you several times, it’s a few months and it is demonstrated by the behavior in the medium frequencies !!!
“few months and it is demonstrated by the behavior”
More assertions without evidence.
Few months is the initial portion of the lag, this must be followed by a much longer lag due to deep ocean warming (are YOU deaf?).
If it is inertial, the damping should cause the virtual disappearance of the medium frequencies. That’s far from being the case.
In addition, I am curious to know how you would explain the absence of inertial effect in the first half of the twentieth century.
https://tinyurl.com/ybw2b9z8
Perseverance is a virtue, but there you go beyond your limits.
Thats a nice plot, thank you. It shows that when the warming rate has become significant, there is a land ocean separation. That is what I would expect for a response to GHG forcing.
Whenever ocean heat content rise is analyzed, it is found to be between 0.5 – 1 W/m^2, and it has become significant only recent decades. A substantial portion of that is below 100 m.
https://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
This means that as the ocean warms, a good chunk of the heat is drained away to depth. It will take some decades to equilibrate, and catch up to land.
Why did the divergence not occur between 1910 and 1940 for a comparable oceanic warming? The climate is supposed to be controlled by forcings and therefore GHG or other, the effect should be identical.
Why, if the mechanism is inertial, the medium frequencies do not disappear?
You describe a magical world controlled by little geniuses.
I leave you to your fairies.
Good evening.
“Why, if the mechanism is inertial, the medium frequencies do not disappear?”
Which medium frequencies? An why do you think they should disappear? Again, being vague.
“You describe a magical world controlled by little geniuses.”
You think energy balance and ocean heat transport is magic? No, just physics.
BTW Phi,
Even UAH shows a strong difference between Land and Ocean warming rate for full 1978-present (data from UAH LT file)
Land Ocean
0.18 0.11
So your point seems moot.
phi says:
“Study based on the comparison of stations according to the rural / urban classification whereas what one seeks is the evolution of the perturbations with time !!!”.
They checked the temperature trends over time. The urban classification was of today. The fear is that increased urbanization drives an increase. Where was the UHI increase if it was not in urban areas? Please explain.
There does seem to be a land-ocean divergence in first half of 20th century.
https://tinyurl.com/y7urlnkr
Wider error bars for both back then, but no reason to think some lock-step ratio should prevail. Multi-annual / decadal fluctuations in vertical heat transport is quite possible.
From the earth’s perspective,
“Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
-Fraser Cain
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
*******
Does Fraser Cain (Universe Today) think the moon rotates relative to the stars? Of course he does:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VGnIuqYKnTE
Well, the clowns must really be getting desperate to bring in clown-in-training, Ms Snape.
When they have finally decided if the Moon has stopped spinning, or if it is still spinning, then I’ll drop the next bomb.
Can’t wait. Squashing pseudoscience is so much fun.
Albert…Fraser Cain, who’s name is uncannily similar to the daffy Fraser Crane on TV, is revealed here as having a degree in computer science.
http://www.astronomycast.com/about/
His simulation of the Moon spinning on it’s axis with Polaris orbiting it is sheer fancy. The rotation of the Moon is about the Earth’s axis, and at that, it is a translational rotation due to its orbital path while tidally locked, not a rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Showing the Moon spinning on its own while Polaris orbits above reveals this guy as an astronomy quack. If you view the night sky from Vancouver, Canada, you can see the Big Dipper (Ursa Major) each clear night appearing to move around Polaris CW, from East to West. Of course, you can only see the night time portion.
In other words, with the Earth’s N-S axis pointed at Polaris, the night sky appears to turn around Polaris. Cain is claiming the view from the Moon is the same due to the Moon turning on it’s axis. He has included an offset so that Polaris is appearing to orbit the Moon.
That is nonsense. Any motion observed from the Moon of the Northern celestial sphere is due to the Moon’s orbit around the planet. If anything, the view will be an altering slo-mo version of what is seen from Earth, since it takes a month for the Moon to complete an orbit.
skeptic…”There is only tension in the cable. No torque. An object cannot just start spinning on its own. The ball was rotating on its axis prior to release. Tension in the cable cannot cause the ball to spin. That tension force is acting right through the center of the ball”.
Was I mistaken, or are we not on the same side as skeptics? If so, why are you behaving like a total p***k toward fellow skeptics? Are you one of those dickheads who takes a skeptical stance simply because you are an ***hole?
I have studied engineering and my explanation to you revealed my reasoning. You failed to comprehend what was said.
When the ball is released on a tangential path, the chain is pointed toward the thrower. As the ball moves straight down its flight path, it pulls the chain with it. You can actually see the chain straighten out and fall in behind the ball.
However, the chain has to move from the the thrower’s side to straight behind the ball, and the chain cannot simply stop in that position since a CCW torque was induced moving the chain from the thrower’s side to straight behind the ball.
The chain has acquired an angular momentum, since it is attached to the ball, and it keeps going past the straight position. As it continues CCW past the straight position, it pulls on the ball, causing it to turn.
Please don’t use your degree in electrical engineering to justify your BS about rotational dynamics.
So, what’s your vote, des?
Has the Moon stopped spinning, as some pseudoscience indicates?
Or, is the Moon still spinning, but there just is no evidence of it?
Nope, the moon is spinning and the evidence is in plain sight, it goes from a full moon to a new moon every month.
That’s because it spins, not because it orbits.
Learn the difference.
Funny, bob!
You’re as confused about lunar motions as you are about thermodynamics.
At least you’re consistent.
Unfortunately we both are consistent.
One of us is wrong and one of us understands science.
One of us has passed a college course in thermodynamics and one of us hasn’t.
One of us knows the difference between a hole in the ground and the planet Uranus.
One of us is lucid and one of us is terribly confused.
Hmmm …. the moon’s rotation on its own axis has nothing to do with its phases.
Its phases are entirely due to the (Earth_Sun)_(Earth_Moon) angle, which is due entirely to the orbit of the moon about the earth and the orbit of the earth about the sun.
If all bodies were stationary in space, how could a mere rotation on its axis cause the moon to have phases with respect to the earth?
A lunar day is the duration of it’s orbit around earth [also related to the term a month- which is roughly 30 earth days of time- more primitive people measure time periods which longer than earth day by repeating pattern of the light of Moon].
If things spin in this universe, then they have axis “on which” they spin.
The moon has axis on which it’s spins and it’s 1.5 degrees relative to the sun- and not relative to Earth.
So Moon has winter and summer, and something with 0 degrees tilt of axis, doesn’t have a winter or summer. 1.5 degrees is not much and Moon doesn’t have much difference of winter and summer.
The Moon also has polar region- and again a small polar region due to small tilt of the axis. Or Earth polar region is 23.5 degrees of latitude and Lunar polar region is 1.5 degrees of latitude.
So the spin of Moon takes rough one earth year [365 days] and lunar day is about 29.5 days.
And moon orbits earth every 27.3 days:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/125-why-is-the-time-between-two-successive-full-moons-different-from-the-lunar-synodic-month-advanced
One could say it this way, the Moon is holding hands with spinning partner [the Earth] and two bodies are traveling “straight” within gravity well of the sun and are whirling each other with Moon always facing the spinning earth. Earth northern hemisphere summer has northern hemisphere tilted towards the sun and moon northern hemisphere is also is pointing towards the sun. 1/2 year later Earth northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, and so is the Moon’s northern hemisphere.
And relative to stars above axis, the axis of both Earth and Moon wobble one way and back in time period of about 365 days.
So Moon doesn’t spin relative to Earth and I was saying it has axis angle is relative to sun and it’s spinning relative to sun. And it actually is spinning if both Earth and Moon are spinning at the same spin rate- one rotation per 365 days. Though I would not blame you, if you feel the need to call it something other than spinning. I don’t have a good term for it, so I just call it, spin [or dancing, or wobbling- also works].
des displays a shocking level of logic!
Those still confused need to study the simple example of a racehorse running the track. The horse always has one side facing the inside of the track. The horse is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. The Moon always has one side facing the Earth. The Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
JD, one (probably final) attempt at clearer, deeper understanding. (And more discussion here is way off-topic and almost certainly not fruitful).
Suppose the earth was also tidally locked with the moon, with the same side of the earth always facing the moon. As I understand your position you would claim:
1) This earth is rotating on its axis once per month, but not orbiting.
2) This moon is orbiting once month, but does not rotating on its axis.
What would you say if the two objects were the same mass, orbiting the center of mass. Which is/are orbiting? Which is/are both rotating? (What if the mass is divided 51%/49%?)
Tim, try to confuse the issue all you want. Your efforts just make you look like a desperate clown.
Does a horse “rotate on its own axis”, as it runs the oval racetrack?
Embrace reality.
Yes, a race horse turns in the turns JD. Learn some physics. Embrace reality, seek a meaningful debate.
JD
I know you are not capable of seeing it, but “facing the inside of the track” is NOT a constant direction. The direction of that side is continually changing.
Tim avoids the simple “yes-or-no” question, entirely.
And Ball4 gives an obscure, diversionary response.
Very telling.
Any other pseudoscience-drinking clown want to answer?
Does a horse “rotate on its own axis”, as it runs the oval racetrack?
des says: “I know you are not capable of seeing it, but facing the inside of the track is NOT a constant direction. The direction of that side is continually changing.”
des, who said that “facing the inside of the track” was a constant direction?
But, your second sentence is correct. The direction is changing due to the horse’s orbit around the track.
Or do you believe the horse is “rotating on its own axis”?
“What would you say if the two objects were the same mass, orbiting the center of mass. Which is/are orbiting? Which is/are both rotating? (What if the mass is divided 51%/49%?)”
Roughly that is what Earth and Moon are doing.
Change Earth so not spinning and tidally locked with Moon.
And increase the mass of Moon to 80 times more massive- which causes the center of gravity to be mid way between Earth and Moon.
And those changes makes it exactly what you are talking about.
JD, consider a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. Everything is stopped. The horse is facing north.
1) Is the horse rotating? Is the horse orbiting the center of the Merry-go-round? [No, and No]
2) As long as the horse is facing north, is it rotating? [No]
3) If you take the horse off the merry-go round and carry around the amusement park always facing north, has the horse ever rotated? [Still No]
3a) Even if you walk around a circle with the horse facing north, is it rotating? [Again, No]
4) Remount the horse on the merry-go-round. If the merry-go-round starts to turn, but the horse keeps facing north, is the horse rotating? [One more time, No]
4a) Is the horse orbiting the center of the merry-go-round? [yes]
5) If the merry-go-round turns, and now the horse keeps facing FORWARD along the direction of the merry-go-round, is the horse rotating? [Yes]
5a) Is the horse orbiting the center of the merry-go-round? [Yes]
Tim, you were doing okay until you started the merry-go-round. It seems the motion confused you. Motion sickness?
If the horse is mounted to the moving platform, he would not continue to face north. He would appear to be turning, just as the Moon appears to be turning. The motion models “orbiting”.
“he would not continue to face north.”
Exactly. He would start to ROTATE as he starts to ORBIT. Both occur simultaneously when the horse is rigidly mounted to the base.
If the horse is instead mounted with low-friction bearings, then he WON’T start to rotate as the merry-go-round starts to turn. He will orbit without rotating.
You even agreed! You agreed that:
“2) As long as the horse is facing north, is it rotating? [No]”
Maybe you are the one getting disoriented by the motion of the merry-go-round.
Tim,
Everything you stated in the the merry-go-round example is spot on, but JD will NEVER see it.
JD has never seen the inside of a physics classroom. He does not comprehend what the simple term “orbiting” means. He does not comprehend the meaning of translational motion. He makes up his own terms like “pure orbital motion” which is meaningless. He’s been spouting this nonsense for almost a year now.
In the graphic David Appell provided, he insisted for the longest time that only in the left gif was the object orbiting, when anyone can see the both objects are orbiting. Then he changed his mind and said both were orbiting.
Just give up. JD does not have the mental goods to understand these very simple concepts.
Sorry to have to correct you once again, SGW, but you really do seem unable to follow a discussion. In fact, David said:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322800
“The animation here on the left shows the Moon both orbiting and rotating. The animation on the right shows the Moon orbiting but NOT rotating.”
To which JDHuffman replied that David had the descriptions reversed. So throughout this discussion, JD has been consistent that in both left and right animations, the moons are orbiting.
Tim BELIEVES: ““He would start to ROTATE as he starts to ORBIT”
No Tim, “orbiting” is NOT the same as “rotating on its own axis”. The motions are independent.
If the horse is fixed to the merry-go-round, then it can NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
The horse would APPEAR, to someone not on the merry-go-round, that the horse was rotating, but it is only orbiting.
Tim attempts his next tactic: “If the horse is instead mounted with low-friction bearings, then he WON’T start to rotate as the merry-go-round starts to turn. He will orbit without rotating.”
Tim, physics is NOT trying to find some way around reality. Changing from “frictionless” bearings to “low-friction” bearings does not change the fact that “orbiting” is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
And, speaking of reality, don’t try to twist my words, as you did with “2)”. That just confirms, again, that you are a clown.
At “2)”, the horse is NOT moving. Learn to understand your own example.
Then, learn some physics.
Dear JD Incarnation,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322855
JD said:
“The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting.”
JD is obviously confused. He does not understand what “orbiting” means. His statements are all over the place. He says one thing, then says something that contradicts what he had said previously.
Try to pay attention and keep up.
Try to keep up:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323899
“The horse would APPEAR, to someone not on the merry-go-round, that the horse was rotating, but it is only orbiting.”
JD, it comes down to …
* You have one definition of “orbiting”.
* Pretty much everyone else (textbooks, physics professors, NASA engineers, the internet) has a different definition.
Your definition is interesting. In some ways it is intuitive. But it is not the only possible definition. In fact, this definition has some serious drawbacks. Such serious drawbacks that you will never convince scientists and engineers to switch from their simple, effective definition to your more convoluted and less useful definition.
For instance, suppose that a merry-go-round rotating clockwise at 10 RPM. If the horse is fixed to the merry-go-round, you insist that the horse is not rotating. However, if I now make the horse always face north, the only possible conclusion you can reach is the horse is now rotating COUNTERCLOCKWISE at 10 RPM.
Let me repeat — you are saying that a horse always facing north is indeed rotating!
How thick are you people that you have only now realised this is precisely what JDHuffman has been saying throughout this discussion?
Dear Dr. Suess,
Here’s another dumb statement from JD:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288991
“An object that is only orbiting does NOT “rotate on it’s own axis””. [JD]
“Only orbiting”. How stupid is that? What the hell does this clown mean by “only orbiting”? LMAO. “Orbiting” simply means following an orbit. An orbiting object can rotate on it’s own axis simultaneously, or it can exhibit pure translational motion during the orbit.
JD is ONE confused puppy. You too! (but you’re the same person, or his dumb brother)
Try to keep up.
I assume it means the same thing as David meant when he said:
“The animation here on the left shows the Moon both orbiting and rotating. The animation on the right shows the Moon orbiting but NOT rotating.”
Only JD is saying the descriptions are reversed.
Not that difficult to follow.
DREMT, you are doing a great job!
Dr. Spencer needs to give you another raise.
The focus should be on REALITY.
Tim says: “You have one definition of ‘orbiting’.”
Yes Tim, and it is the ONLY correct definition. Learn some physics!
Tim says: “Pretty much everyone else (textbooks, physics professors, NASA engineers, the internet) has a different definition.”
Tim, there is NO definition of “orbiting” that also implies “rotating on its own axis”. Learn some physics.
Now starts the really funny stuff:
Tim: “For instance, suppose that a merry-go-round rotating clockwise at 10 RPM. If the horse is fixed to the merry-go-round, you insist that the horse is not rotating.”
The horse is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Tim: “However, if I now make the horse always face north, the only possible conclusion you can reach is the horse is now rotating COUNTERCLOCKWISE at 10 RPM.”
NONSENSE, Tim. How do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?
Tim continues: “Let me repeat — you are saying that a horse always facing north is indeed rotating!”
No Tim, you are shamelessly perverting reality. Are you obsessed with being a clown, or on drugs, like some others here?
Dr Seuss sputters, “Only JD is saying the descriptions are reversed!”.
JD says a lot of stuff to cover his bases. JD specifically stated that the left gif represented “only orbiting”, which is one of his made-up terms, since he has no education in physics/mechanics/kinematics. JD is confused by the term “orbiting”, as are you. (since you are the same dumb incarnation)
It’s hilarious that JD berates Tim concerning the term “orbiting” when JD cannot even comprehend the term, and uses it incorrectly.
Then I guess David was just as clueless when he said “orbiting but not rotating”
Anyway, I have corrected enough reading comprehension failures for now. Let us get this discussion moving again. Personally, I am interested to know what Tim’s answer to this question would be:
“How do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?”
Our resident clown shrieks, “Tim, there is NO definition of orbiting that also implies rotating on its own axis. Learn some physics!”
That’s news to physicists!
In the Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, it states:
“The motion of the whole Earth in space consists of a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation around the center of mass.”
[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/1-4020-4520-4_116]
Poor JD just can’t win. Must be frustrating to look the fool for the thousands of people who read this blog.
Poor SGW, he just can’t understand his own links.
His link clearly identifies both motions, orbital and “rotating on its own axis”.
“The motion of the whole Earth in space consists of a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation around the center of mass.”
I enjoy swatting flies….
Where’s Tim with some more of his pseudoscience?
Poor JD. Always opening mouth, inserting foot. He needs a refresher course on the English language, perhaps from Dr Seuss.
The statement in the link defines the orbit as a translation plus rotation around the center of mass, NOT as as “orbital” and “rotating on its own axis”.
JD not only enjoys swatting flies, but enjoys making up stuff, and twisting the English language to suit his pseudoscience beliefs.
SGW, your link’s definition of Earth’s motion agrees with mine.
“The statement in the link defines the orbit as a translation plus rotation around the center of mass.”
But, somehow you must have missed that the discussion is about the Moon….
“Tim: ‘However, if I now make the horse always face north, the only possible conclusion you can reach is the horse is now rotating COUNTERCLOCKWISE at 10 RPM.'”
JD “NONSENSE, Tim. How do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?”
Tim continues: “Let me repeat you are saying that a horse always facing north is indeed rotating!”
“No Tim, you are shamelessly perverting reality.”
This is hilarious, JD, because Tim’s horse always facing North is doing exactly what the Moon orbiting in the famous Right Image is doing. The one you have always said is rotating CCW.
And you are calling it NONSENSE.
Meanwhile, both you and DREMT focus on the mechanism for keeping the horse always facing North! What silliness.
Exactly, Nate.
The moon gif on the right posted by David exhibits pure translational motion, which is defined:
“Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
[http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf]
It’s the gif on the left which totally confuses JD. JD happily refers to various articles on Wikipedia, but the article on Tidal Locking is verboten. Because in that article it states:
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
[repost with hopefully correct formatting]
Exactly, Nate.
The moon gif on the right posted by David exhibits pure translational motion, which is defined:
“Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
[http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf]
It’s the gif on the left which totally confuses JD. JD happily refers to various articles on Wikipedia, but the article on Tidal Locking is verboten. Because in that article it states:
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
“SGW, your links definition of Earths motion agrees with mine.
I seriously doubt it. This general motion applies to any type of general plane rigid body motion, which includes the moon, race cars on a track, wagons on a track, horses etc. Your personal definition of orbiting does not agree with the kinematic accepted definition of of orbiting.
“But, somehow you must have missed that the discussion is about the Moon.
No. The discussion was specifically in reference to a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. It was indirectly related to the motion of the moon.
More reading comprehension failure, with Nate attributing the word NONSENSE to something other than the idea that a horse firmly fixed to the merry-go-round could always point north. SGW is still struggling to follow what is being discussed, despite my assistance.
And still nobody has answered the question, how do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?
“that a horse firmly fixed to the merry-go-round could always point north”
I know, such things are impossible, for the perpetually perplexed point passers.
Nate, it is impossible for a horse firmly fixed to the merry-go-round to always point north. That is an impossibility for everyone, perpetually perplexed point passers like yourself, or otherwise. Perhaps you would care to answer the question that everyone is avoiding?
I will give a little hint: the horse would first have to be free to rotate on its own axis.
“And still nobody has answered the question, how do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?”
(Remember, the correct reference frame is always the non-rotating background the merry-go-round is fixed to, which is where the x-y coordinate system would exist to analyze the problem.)
Now to answer your question. This is a toy horse and toy merry-go-round. The horse is on a peg on the the merry-go-round, so it can swivel. (Assume the merry-go-round rotates CCW, and the horse initially faces north) You grab the toy horse between your fingers to prevent the toy horse from rotating on its axis as the merry-go-round turns. However, the toy horse does rotate CW wrt the rotating merry-go-round, but that is not the correct reference frame by which its true motion is described.
If this was a person standing on one of those playground merry-go-rounds, and he was facing north when the merry-go-round started to rotate CCW, the person would have to rotate CW wrt the rotating merry-go-round to keep facing north. But his true motion wrt the non-rotating reference frame would be described as pure translation, since his orientation remains fixed, always pointing north throughout the motion of the merry-go-round.(same as the moon gif on the right). Kinematically, the person would be purely translating along the orbital path.
If the guy was uncooperative and refused to rotate CW wrt the rotating merry-go-round, his true motion would then be described as a translation of his center of mass along his orbital path, plus a rotation (CCW) about his center of mass.
“it is impossible for a horse firmly fixed to the merry-go-round to always point north. ”
Professional point missers, DREMT-JD,
a. TIM: “If the horse is instead mounted with low-friction bearings, then he WONT start to rotate as the merry-go-round starts to turn. ”
b. or-use a tiny bit of imagination. It is a thought experiment!
c. Poor attempt at distraction from the MAIN POINT.
Which was that your team was fine with the horse being walked around (translating) all over, while always pointing North, and that the horse was in that case NOT rotating.
Now on a rotating platform, again always pointing North, your team claims it is rotating, CCW no less. This is a contradiction.
The reading comprehension failures keep stacking up:
1) SGW, it was not my question.
2) SGW, it is not a toy merry-go-round. Why would there be a toy merry-go-round in an amusement park?
3) Nate, if a horse is mounted on low-friction bearings, thus able to rotate on its own axis, then it is not firmly fixed (unable to rotate on its own axis).
As for what you call your MAIN POINT, I assume you are getting that from where JDHuffman said:
“Tim, you were doing okay until you started the merry-go-round.”
Meaning that you assume JD agrees with everything prior to Tim’s point 4, in which case there is the apparent contradiction you mention. Yes that is one thing for JD to explain or concede he made an error, if the conversation ever gets back on track from all the misunderstandings.
DREMT,
“Nate, if a horse is mounted on low-friction bearings, thus able to rotate on its own axis, then it is not firmly fixed (unable to rotate on its own axis).”
Yes, and this confusion is entirely of your team’s own making.
Talking about a failure of reading comprehension!
Ah, I think we are at the stage when Nate brings out the false accusations.
“how do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?”
That was your question Dr. Suess, and I answered it. Perhaps English is not your native language? Now time for your nappy.
Go take a kinematics course and you won’t have so many dumb questions.
Poor SGW just can NOT follow a discussion. No, it was JDHuffmans question, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323946
It was a Team Seuss question. You clowns are the same person. The question was answered.
Now go sign up for some college physics courses and quit asking dumb questions.
You’re welcome.
DREMT “Personally, I am interested to know what Tims answer to this question would be:
How do you plan to make the horse always face north if it is on a merry-go-round?
DREMT “Its not my question”
No, but you are enabling the troll to once again try to distract us from the main issues.
The question you ought to ask is why does JD need to use what SGW hilariously calls the “Look, a squirrel!’ technique?
Why should JD need to so often resort to such ‘debate tricks’, if he has a such a good case to argue? (hint: he doesnt)
Nate, please stop trolling.
whoosh.
😂
Gordon Robertson
“His simulation of the Moon spinning on its axis with Polaris orbiting it is sheer fancy.”
The moon spins with respect to Polaris, which is said to be stationary (inertial space). Not the other way around.
You appear to be too stupid, Gordon, to correctly represent what I wrote. Did you graduate from high school?
He claims to be an electrical engineer. But he has proven to be muddled even in that field.
Shocking
You really are a retard JD:
JD states:
“October 3, 2018 at 4:08 PM
Nope, you’ve still got them reversed. The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting.”
So JustDumb first says only the left one is orbiting, and now he says both are orbiting.
I have never seen anyone willing to embarrass themselves constantly.
SGW’s has lost all ability to communicate rationally.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323899
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309 reporting on the latest IPCC policy document with the following five steps needed to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees:
taken directly from the BBC report:
” 1) Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030
2) Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050
3) Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero
4) Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia)
5) Global net zero emissions by 2050
with the following warnings if we don’t act?
The researchers say that if we fail to keep temperatures below 1.5C, we are in for some significant and dangerous changes to our world.
You can kiss coral reefs good-bye, as the report says they would be essentially 100% wiped out at 2 degrees of warming.
Global sea-level will rise around 10 centimetres more if we let warming go to 2C, That may not sound like much but keeping to 1.5C means that 10 million fewer people would be exposed to the risks of flooding.
There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat.
“We are already in the danger zone at one degree of warming,” said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.
“Both poles are melting at an accelerated rate; ancient trees that have been there for hundreds of years are suddenly dying; and the summer we’ve just experienced – basically, the whole world was on fire.” ”
Does the real science show this?
“Does the real science show this?”
CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s temperature above the established equilibrium.
Ocean floors continue to rise, due to several factors. Floors rising will cause sea levels to rise.
Does the real science show this?
http://scholar.google.com.au/
barry, in all your data gathering have you ever seen already-graphed monthly averages of global temps (not anomalies, actuals)? Preferable 30 years or more.
Such that are fairly reliable, i.e., both sides would (mostly) accept.
It is not my job to speak for barry, but I nevertheless wanted to ask you in order to understand your position.
Why do you wish absolute temperatures?
Because you don’t trust in anomalies?
Then you can’t even trust in UAH’s data like in
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
because it’s all anomaly based there as well.
*
Do you seriously want to look at such graphs based on absolute temperatures?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ruQvemUvQHouf5mybh02u8UsDjKHk6d_/view
Imagine you would want to compare this GHCND time series above with NOAA land.
You would obtain a horrible spaghetti landscape on the window.
And if you wanted to compare, in absolute form, GHCND with UAH, you would have two time series distant by 24 C.
The same would happen if you wanted to compare UAH’s time series e.g. for the lower troposphere and the lower stratosphere.
*
So isn’t it preferable to look at the departures from a common reference period, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F6461z71thy6nVIfiz-60VT1xBBCyNj5/view
It was generated out of exactly the same original data as that visible above on the absolute value chart.
Now you can compare your GHCND time series with that of NOAA for 1895-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QYUg-DPy191QGCjT5OzxFaRtxsU3zoxV/view
or with UAH for 1979-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yL77f_SJwjy3Rv0TGmImDYpNHBpsyV_p/view
*
Anomalies have nothing to do with any kind of warming ideology.
They not ony are departures from the mean of a reference period; they also remove what Roy Spencer calls the “annual cycle”.
Your wish for absolute time series with yearly averaging I would better understand, because then the spaghetti disappear – at the cost of information loss, of course.
Apologies, graph (3) above was made using a time series generated without latitude weighting. The corrected graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F6461z71thy6nVIfiz-60VT1xBBCyNj5/view
Thanks for responding, Bindidon.
But your graphs do not magnify enough. I’m curious about the monthly actuals, year to year, for something like the last 30-40 years.
It’s not your fault, but why aren’t such graphs readily available to the public?
“But your graphs do not magnify enough. Im curious about the monthly actuals, year to year, for something like the last 30-40 years.”
Sorry that’s a bit cryptic for me. What exactly do you mean by “magnify” and “actuals” ?
It’s worth pointing out that when compiling global temp data there is never a point at which there is a global absolute temp. Individual station data gets converted to anomalies very early in the process.
Absolute global temps can be derived from anomalies, but that has much less utility compared to anomalies. Bin has pointed out some of the reasons.
“Its worth pointing out that when compiling global temp data there is never a point at which there is a global absolute temp.”
To that sentence I can’t agree, barry.
1. I can average any (sub)set of absolute station data into a daily, monthly or yearly sum.
2. You are of course right:
“Individual station data gets converted to anomalies very early in the process.”
Because constructing anomalies for Verhojansk (Siberia), Death Valley and Sydney on the base of e.g. a global reference period vector would not make much sense.
Even averaging absolute data into grid cells and then constructing anomalies out of each grid vector gives you spurious results.
But you can average all local reference vectors into a global one. This for example is a reference vector for 1981-2010, averaged out of all absolute ‘GHCN daily’ station data in the Arctic (60N-82.5N):
Jan | -15.11 (C)
Feb | -13.81
Mar | -9.70
Apr | -2.54
May | 4.89
Jun | 10.82
Jul | 13.75
Aug | 11.72
Sep | 6.55
Oct | -0.71
Nov | -8.71
Dec | -13.12
It is never used during processing (for the same reason as above), but gives you a first hint on how the Arctic behaves.
Bindidon and barry, thanks for the info. It looks like this one is the closest to what I wanted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ruQvemUvQHouf5mybh02u8UsDjKHk6d_/view
I just prefer absolutes over anomalies. Such representations are hard to find.
“I just prefer absolutes over anomalies.”
What you see on your preferred graph is no more than a highly compressed, much less exact variant of the anomaly-based chart.
But it seems to be a matter of taste for you, and I can accept that.
“Such representations are hard to find.”
No they aren’t. Not at all. But… but since everybody on Earth uses departures from means, only those are published as ASCII text on the web. The graph you see I generated with an own ‘amateurish’ software.
Absolute vales are everywhere, stored together with lots of other stuff within huge files in NetCdf format.
You can recognize these files by their ‘.nc’ extension, like here:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc
If I wasn’t so lazy, I would have started processing them since years.
*
Last year I wanted to see how absolute temperatures behave in Eastern Siberia wrt the lower troposphere above it. It was amazing, the troposphere’s running mean was above that of the surface:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fHcAQrih1T5ETpaUXaCdptxEVO_8S25j/view
I will have a look at that, maybe I remember what I did and can show you how Roy Spencer’s UAH looks like when the temps are expressed in absolute values instead of in known anomalies.
Bindidon says: “…can show you how Roy Spencer’s UAH looks like when the temps are expressed in absolute values…”
That would be great!
I forgot that in a thread explaining why anomalies are so primordial, Roy Spencer not only published UAH 6.0’s monthly climatology (i.e. a vector showing for each month the average absolute value for the period 1981-2010).
He also published, below the climatology, a graph showing UAH 6.0 with absolute values instead of anomalies wrt the climatology means:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
*
Out of Roy Spencer’s 2.5 degree grid data
– monthly anomalies stored in the files:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2018_6.0
– 1981-2010 climatology stored in the file:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
I generated among other things the following graph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GAaQeCvssus8VNZgauQ1QyXSrRw29iDt/view
If we compare this graph with Mr Spencer’s, we see that my ‘amateurish’ work (copyright Galbert Einsteinson) was not quite wrong.
I did never generate the graph before. But the result of our little exchange was that I discovered an interesting detail when comparing absolute and anomaly data.
More tomorrow but downthread, it gets boring to switch all the time.
Bin, my point was that NOAA, GISS, UAH, RSS etc don’t compute a global average absolute temp during their processing, from which they derive the anomaly. That’s why they don’t tend to provide charts of annual absolute global average. Sometimes they post one as a point of interest, but it’s just not part of the regular processing. Of course, it’s possible to gin up your own version, as you’ve done, using the absolute temps for individual station data.
And they don’t bother doing it because the anomaly system is much superior. One can immediately compare change at different altitudes, different latitudes, different regions, without having to rebaseline every time you do it. In every way it is a more efficient system for measuring change.
I’m racking my brains to try and figure out why using absolute temps would be preferable. Whenever I’ve seen a preference discussed, it’s always about reducing the amount of visual information (making changes look small etc). It’s the opposite of what you’d want to get a clear inspection.
binny…”o isnt it preferable to look at the departures from a common reference period, like here:”
No…definitely not. The absolute temperature running average from 1895 – 2018 clearly shows an essentially flat trend with natural variability.
The only reason anyone would want to use an anomaly graph is to exaggerate warming by making tenths of a degree look like a mountain.
Heh, and right on cue Gordon posts and immediately demonstrates my latter point.
Gordon, all charts are designed to give as much information as possible. Whether in the thousandths or the thousands, the change is the point of focus. This about clarity of vision. The Y axis is labeled and a graph with clean information shows the change for most of the depth of the Y axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM
The only reason anyone would want to use an anomaly graph is to exaggerate warming by making tenths of a degree look like a mountain.
___________________________________________________
Sorry, but thats nonsens.
Warming trend of anomalies and absolute datas look identicall and ARE indentical.
There is not even the smallest difference.
barry says: October 9, 2018 at 5:38 PM
Bin, my point…
And they don’t bother doing it [report absolute temperatures] because the anomaly system is much superior. One can immediately compare change at different altitudes, different latitudes, different regions, without having to rebaseline every time you do it. In every way it is a more efficient system for measuring change.
I’m racking my brains…
What they are doing is giving us the anomaly generated from average temperatures.
As Dixie Lee Ray said: “Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle.”
The average of 49 and 51 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50.
First they average up the station daily high and low then they average those for the year, and then average up all the stations from the tropics to the poles – compute the anomaly and we’re supposed to believe that the number that drops out of that actually means something. Well maybe it’s more complicated than that but the hottest year ever meme that I’ve treated to for the past 30 years is getting old. The IPCC tells us that the minimums are warming – that would be at night, in winter, and the higher latitudes. Afternoons, summer time and in the tropics not so much. That leads to milder weather. Of course in the United States we’re going to be told that the current monster hurricane coming ashore in Florida, as I type, is worse due to “Climate Change”.
Did I just ramble on? Well anyway two numbers, anomalies from the highs and lows, might provide a better picture of what’s going on.
“Did I just ramble on?”
Yes you did. Why didn’t you read carefully all the comments above, before starting to write like hypergenius Galbert Reinsteinson?
“Well anyway two numbers, anomalies from the highs and lows, might provide a better picture of what’s going on.”
I tried that, and as expected, the average was inbetween of the two. What else should we expect?
“What they are doing is giving us the anomaly generated from average temperatures.”
What for a sheer nonsense are you telling here, steve case?
All people generating departures from the mean of a period
– exclude all stations lacking sufficient data during that period;
– compute locally for all remaining stations (e.g. for GHCN daily during 1981-2010: 22767 of 35575) the departures from the main
and then
– average them first into grid cells with appropriate grid resolution (e.g. 2.5 degree like UAH)
– average the grid cells into e.g. monthly values.
*
Now I’m sure you’ll immediately suspect this grid averaging, like all ‘skeptics’.
The reason for the step simply is that whichever global station (sub)set you consider, you can be sure that at least 50% of the stations considered are in the US, what results in your global temperatures being dominated by 6% of the land surface.
After gridding, you have a completely different situation: about 200 US grid cells now compete with 2200 world grid cells. That’s 9% instead of 50.
Thanks to Bindidon (and Dr Spencer):
UAH global TLT in absolute temps:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-thru-feb-2016-with-anncyc-1.jpg
Global land surface absolute temps:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ruQvemUvQHouf5mybh02u8UsDjKHk6d_/view
Long-term change is pretty much obscured by the annual range. If you want to know how much the global av temp changes over the course of one year, this is the graph for you. If you want to compare the annual temp from one year to some other, or see if there has been any long-term change, these graphs are near useless.
Also, the monthly autocorrelation on these graphs is huge, so deriving trends using monthly absolute data would be harder, and much more statistically uncertain than using anomalies.
Anomalies are what you use if you want to get a fix on any change in a system.
As the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures go will go global temperatures. Now at +.41c deviation very warm.
I am shocked over the warmth, but I will not fight the data.
As I have said if the cooling trend does not occur now- next few years it will not happen.
If it actually warms I will be wrong. We will find out.
No – if UAH anomalies don’t fall to zero and beyond you will be wrong.
What will make AGW correct that is the question?
A sound physical basis backed by observations.
I have no clue as to why the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures have risen so much in such a short period of time.
I admit it.
I’ve already explained the rise to you. How can you still not have a clue?
Huffy
If monthly, absolute values were graphed, a yearly cycle would show up (like in the Keeling curve), adding to the confusion of ENSO cycles.
Interestingly, Earth’s average temperature tends to be highest
when the sun’s radiation is weakest (the aphelion).
“3a) Even if you walk around a circle with the horse facing north, is it rotating? [Again, No]”
Our dimwitted troll forgot to disagree!
Even Snape, who I had always assumed to be this websites thickest commenter, understood it before Tim, SGW and barry. Of course, he did nothing to correct either of them along the way or help them in their confusion.
Really difficult to teach a horse to walk that way.
First you have to teach him to spin in a circle standing in the same spot.
Makes you think, but some here can’t.
Even more difficult to teach a wooden horse to walk that way.
Makes teaching JD, DREMT, and Gordon science look like a cakewalk.
Can you lead a wooden horse to water?
How about leading a wooden horse to water on the moon?
Bob, I have just been trying to help people with their reading comprehension skills, and general inability to follow a discussion. Just like you, here.
No you don’t,
All you do is tell the posters that are on the ball to stop trolling!
You add very little to the conversation.
And you stumble around from thread to thread, not paying any attention to what anybody is saying, generally acting like a drunken fool. But never mind.
I do not drink and post.
Anyway I am paying attention to what people are saying specifically with respect to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and whether or not the Moon is rotating.
I am correct on both of those counts and have tried to explain where you and the rest of the clowns go wrong.
I don’t keep repeating the same incorrect garbage, I try to find another path.
But some horses just won’t drink.
You stumble around from thread to thread, not paying any attention to what people are saying, generally acting like a drunken fool.
“Snape, who I had always assumed to be this websites thickest commenter, understood it before Tim, SGW and barry”
Ha, DREMT, Looks like you are the one with reading comprehension problems.
What do you think Snape is saying here?
The same thing you were saying with your “MAIN POINT”, from earlier.
My point to Snape was that his understanding of JDHuffman’s arguments was clearly greater than being stuck on the reading comprehension problem SGW keeps having (about the two gifs), and that he could have helped those people out with that misunderstanding. So could you have done, I expect.
I know you are desperate to score a point here, sorry to disappoint.
understood WHAT before Tim, SGW and barry?
“Huffy and his team believe that if a horse is walking awkwardly in a circle, always facing north, that means the horse is ROTATING relative to north.”
Is this something that you personally makes sense? And how so?
As far as I can tell, it’s a straw man (the “relative to north” part). But then, this isn’t my fight. Why don’t you go and ask the guy making the arguments?
Trying to help people to read seems to be my fight.
Trying to help people to read what the village idiots say seems to be your fight.
You seem upset. Take some time out, and try to calm down.
What I just said. Jesus wept.
Ok, I’ll do my best to explain:
Huffy and his team believe that if a horse is walking awkwardly in a circle, always facing north, that means the horse is ROTATING relative to north.
If the front, back, and both sides of the horse faces north, one after the other (as the horse moves in a circle), they think this means the horse is NOT rotating relative to north.
Got it?
I have just been correcting some peoples reading comprehension failures. You could have helped, you know.
Got it?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You did not go by the posting name “J-Halpless” previously did you?
You post a lot like that person did and you seem to support JDHuffman in most of his antiscience absurd and unsupported declarations.
People show him he is clearly daft but you come and support him anyway. JDHuffman does not know lick about science. He googles things from time to time and posts the words (without knowing what they mean) like Wien’s Law, radiative flux, Poynting Vectors, rotation and then you come to support him in his mindless efforts at annoying people who understand science and think logically.
If anyone pushes him on his lack of knowledge he goes into this distraction methodology and will never respond to any points.
Not sure what your agenda is but it does seem to support this poster at all costs. Most of your posts concern his absurd posts, and a defense.
It would be one thing if JDHuffman inspired thought. He does not. He will not debate points or generate rational thought.
What a debate with JDHuffman always devolves to, 100% of the time regardless of who is posting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrbOVeRonQ
You are unable to differentiate between “criticizing others”, and “supporting JDHuffman”, and are unable to differentiate between “not criticizing JDHuffman” and “supporting JDHuffman”. Yes, we had already established that. So, all your trolling aside, do you remember this comment?:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-314483
Here is what you, Norman, said:
“JDHuffman and Ge*ran post in very much the same annoying style. They both use similar phrases. If you had even a little rational thought process you could see that Nate and Norman and the rest post very different ways”.
A bit strange how you referred to yourself in the third person there. Sure you are not part of a team of people working various avatars?
Norman’s long meandering rant contained not one valid point.
It must be hard to rattle on endlessly without getting something right.
But, Norman excels in both incompetence and dishonestly.
At least he knows how to type….
JDHuffman
Again a typical meaningless comment from you. No content, no meaning. Only taunts. Nothing more. You do not seem capable of logic rational thought or even understanding elementary science concepts. But you have many taunts nothing else of value that I can see. Still pounding out your same old lies about me being dishonest. I remember when you constantly addressed me as Con-man.
You will never be able to produce logical valid statements. You should look at the Monty Python video. This is what you do. Nothing more, usually less.
You have your follower DREMT trying desperately to protect the man he loves. I think DREMT is probably your wife. She comes to your defense quite often but then claims she is not supporting you. Most think differently.
Pathetic, desperate trolling from Norman.
I was struck by the announcement today that we only have twelve years left to get our acts together. It feels a little funny knowing that members of my family were left looking rather sheepish when the world didn’t end in 1500.
Seriously, I think we are finally turning the corner on this thing. Twelve years isn’t a long time. With China developing at a massive rate and openly challenging for world hegemony, there is exactly zero chance that USA (or even Europe)could choose to de-industrialize (which is what the required response to this scare entails).
Therefore, that silly deadline will pass ; people will have to give up the pretense that anybody is going to stop global warming, and get down to the business of individually and locally (definitely NOT globally) figuring to how to live with it.
And as human beings are rather clever little buggers I have no doubt that things will work out fine.
Feel the Love
Gordon from Montreal
12 years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Why did you leave out the last bit?
And yes, it will remain a pretense while people like you are making decisions for us.
The point is, that in the real world the required program is just impossible.
But then the good news : with a little bit of adaptability (not techno-cultural suicide) we’ll be just fine.
Feel the Love
Gordon from Montreal
When you say “we” are you including the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 per day, or the 5-6 billion who live on less than $10 per day? Or are you focusing on the world’s wealthy minority?
des, are you suggesting we forcibly impose freedom, democracy and capitalism on the world’s less fortunate?
And YOU were complaining about people’s comprehension skills. Keep your own house in order first.
des, you’re the one that divided the “we” into financial rankings.
I just focused on one of your “groupings”.
If you hold a compass in your hand, and turn in a circle, the magnetic needle will appear to rotate 360 degrees. The dynamic duo have taken this to heart, believing the person was infact stationary with respect to north, while the needle rotated.
As I warned our readers some time ago, do NOT let Huffy or Halp lead a Boy Scout troop!
Snape, mixing your incompetence with dishonestly will gain you points with the clowns.
But, what value is that?
Bob: When you say “we” are you including the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 per day, or the 5-6 billion who live on less than $10 per day? Or are you focusing on the world’s wealthy minority?
***************
All of the above.
Most of these people won’t even notice it.
If you get washed out on the shore, move inland. If your island gets submerged go to a taller one. People have been doing that since the beginning of time. Its not a question of money. Its a question of common sense.
We keep getting these claims that water will rise x feet or meters. OK. But what is the percentage of total land mass that will be lost ?
That figure, I believe, is trivial.
Arable land will be lost ? Arable land will also be gained.
In the generations it is going to take for any of these things to happen, ordinary people, poor or rich, will have plenty of time to react.
Any one who has the “sense to com in out of the rain” will be fine.
Feel the Love
Gordon from Montreal
“If your island gets submerged go to a taller one. People have been doing that since the beginning of time. Its not a question of money. Its a question of common sense.”
Its not common sense to move Manhattan or Venice to higher ground.
Same goes for many other such cities and infrastructure that have been built up in the last millenia.
Tell me – how easy will it be for 1 hundred million Bangladeshis to move when their delta gets inundated?
Arable land will NOT automatically be gained. How long do you think it takes for desert sand to become arable?
And please … quit this “feel the love” BS. It is clearly designed only to rile.
“The second installment of the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes, Most large deltas in Asia are sinking (as a result of groundwater withdrawal, floodplain engineering, and trapping of sediments by dams) much faster than global sea-level is rising.
Humans are sinking deltas four times faster than sea levels are rising, according to James Syvitski, geologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and chairman of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP). Water, oil and gas extraction and fish farms are common causes for delta subsidence around the world but in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh dams are predominantly responsible, Syvitski told thethirdpole.net.”
https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/2014/05/06/dams-responsible-for-south-asias-sinking-deltas/
I wonder why they don’t pump the sediments in the dams to the delta.
One can pump concrete and it seems should able to pipe mud to the delta. And use water pressure of the dam to power it.
A pipe can deliver far more volume as compare to barges or rail.
I will look up dredging dams:
–What is involved in the dam dredging process?
The mechanical cutter head in the front end of the suction pipe extracts sediment. It also loosens other debris such as gravel and organic material.
A floatable or on-land pump station sucks the sediment and debris through a large discharge pipe. The sediment and debris travel up to 2,5 km to a temporary storage facility. The pump station returns clear water back to the dam.
We recycle the contents of the storage facilities and remove them from the site.–
https://amanzisavers.com/dam-dredging-works/
So, instead have much much longer pipe and it goes downhill, instead.
The problem is the basic problem with Bangladesh- the government.
Don’t build new dams. Dredge the silt out of existing reservoirs instead.
“Former state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) had a better idea: Remove the accumulated silt behind our existing dams to free up more space for water storage. This is much cheaper to do than building new dams, and it saves arable land and beautiful canyons.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-news-dams-california-20170315-story.html
But in terms delta, since purpose to get import mud to delta, one also dredge rivers to make them deeper- reduce river flooding, improve river navigation- and rivers near delta are shorter distance to ship the sediment.
And the scale of it [if it’s going to make a difference] is say somewhere around 1 cubic km of mud per year- or a lot
gbaikie…”One can pump concrete and it seems should able to pipe mud to the delta. And use water pressure of the dam to power it.”
Here in Canada we are planning to pump a slurry of tar impregnated sand some 800 miles through a pipeline to the coast. You could pipe anything you want if you can lubricate it with water or whatever.
Funny how you take from the IPCC report only what supports your case, and leave the rest behind.
Again, WHO is going to pay for your solution?
You could fund major infrastructure improvements, and even cut taxes, with the funds wasted on pseudoscience.
Who is “you”? We are talking about Bangladesh.
Well, that takes us back to my question earlier: Are you suggesting we forcibly impose freedom, democracy and capitalism on the world’s less fortunate?
bob…”Funny how you take from the IPCC report only what supports your case, and leave the rest behind”.
There has to be some use for the IPCC. With regard to warming/climate issues I see no use at all.
If you get washed out on the shore, move inland. If your island gets submerged go to a taller one. People have been doing that since the beginning of time
Oh yes, as we’ve seen in recent years, you can go anywhere you want and the people welcome with open borders.
Less sarcastically, we’re no longer a nomadic species. We’re land-locked and increasingly territorial.
Feel the shove.
Well put!
posted above for Tim but posted again due to articles at links.
I hope you laugh at this, I think it’s a hoot.
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/definition-of-time/
also…
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/
From link 1:
“Definition of Time
There is no one simple definition of time
Time is something we deal with every day, and something that everyone thinks they understand. However, a compact and robust definition of time has proved to be remarkably tricky and elusive.
Short Definitions
Among the many short, snappy definitions of time that have been put forward are:
-what clocks measure (attr. to physicists Albert Einstein, Donald Ivey, and others)
***my note: a clock generates time, and unless synchronized to GMT, generates different times on different clocks.
-what prevents everything from happening at once (physicist John Wheeler and others)
***my note: this is just plain silly. Time has nothing to do with physical events.
-a linear continuum of instants (philosopher Adolf Grnbaum)
***my note: typical philosophical bs.
-a certain period during which something is done (Medical Dictionary)
-a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
***my note: no kidding!!!! In other words, it’s not there.
a further note.
There is nothing other than ‘here and now’. The rest is an illusion created by visions conjured from the human memory.
The entire universe operates in the ‘here and now’ space. There is no past ‘out there’ as many astronomer try to claim. Light we see from distant stars is here right now, at our eyes, or we would not be able to see it.
If someone wants to believe the blarney about a Big Bang, have a happy delusion. There is no proof whatsoever that the Universe is expanding from a primordial Bang. There are allegations that should not be uttered in the same breath as real science.
It’s actually enlightening to get it that we live in the same physical space as those who came before us. There is no other dimension separating us. People and animals populate this space then they die. We are currently populating it then we will die. There is no motion through a dimension of time.
Your anti-science continues. Why even pretend you have an interest in science?
Your trolling continues. Why even pretend you have an interest in science?
Your trolling continues. Why even pretend you have an interest in science?
Your trolling continues. Why even pretend you have an interest in science?
bob…”Why even pretend you have an interest in science?”
Why don’t you contribute to science by showing what time is, where to find it, and how to prove it is a real phenomenon.
While you’re at it, try proving that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere can lead to catastrophic warming and climate change.
This is the other Bob,
But take your straw man down, the really bad doesn’t happen until 0.06 % CO2.
Although the effects have already been catastrophic for a few.
DREMT seems fine with anti-science statements, and is morally opposed to anti anti-science comments…apparently.
Nate seems fine with accepting that if somebody says someone is anti-science, that means that someone is anti-science.
“If someone wants to believe the blarney about a Big Bang, have a happy delusion. There is no proof whatsoever that the Universe is expanding from a primordial Bang.”
Anti science statement. One of many from this commenter.
Oh, I thought part of science was to question our understanding of the Universe.
Questioning not equal to denying.
“The problem with the proof is x, y, and z” is questioning.
“There is no proof” is denying.
What if somebody stating “there is no proof whatsoever” was just their way of opening up a discussion?
Yes, but Gordon does not do honest debate.
Oh, right. OK.
Bob,
There is a shit pile of arable land in Canada just waiting to go if the temperature were to warm up a bit.
If you really want to protect certain low ares, it can be done. Holland is the proof of that and the Chinese are making islands as we speak. It is usually not cost effective, but you can do it.
So, we cut our losses, selectively abandon obsolete infrastructure instead of replacing it on the spot. There is already evidence that many of these places would be cheaper to replace than to maintain and it has nothing to do with climate, just construction cost benefit logic of renovation versus new construction at a higher standard.
“one hundred million Bangladeshis” eh ?. Sounds like they should start hauling ass out of there. But wait, see that cab driver over there ? The clever ones already are !
Feel the Love
Gordon from Montreal
Gordon…”There is a shit pile of arable land in Canada just waiting to go if the temperature were to warm up a bit”.
If you don’t mind being eaten alive by mosquitoes and black flies.
Good – so the Canadian government will pay to move 100 million Bangladeshis to Canada. Good to see you guys are so accommodating.
Hi Gord,
Maybe global warming will take care of the black flies. You never know. Mosquitoes on the other hand … Maybe they will evolve into something as big as the central american cock roach, heh heh
Bob,
I don’t think so. But they have about one hundred years to at least learn the rhythm method.
Seriously with women’s rights the problem is going to be low population, not the reverse. And if their women are still slaves in a hundred years they deserve whatever is coming to them.
Just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you get to be stupid.
Feel the Love,
Gordon from Montreal
Your expressed opinions certainly don’t gel with your signoff. Why do you even bother with that facade?
Point is : There is a rational manner to approach the possibility of climate change, and there is an irrational way.
trying to stop people from producing co2, in the amounts postulated is deeply irrational. not helpful. counterproductive. Potentially very dangerous.
Feel the Love
Gordon from Montreal
bob…”so the Canadian government will pay to move 100 million Bangladeshis to Canada. Good to see you guys are so accommodating”.
You have it wrong. Our governments only import people from Third World countries to undercut the wages of Canadian workers. Most Canadians won’t work for $8 an hour in a McDonalds because on that wage they cannot afford basic amenities like having an apartment and eating properly.
Third World immigrants live a dozen to a domicile, enabling them to afford the rent.
In their political correctness, our governments bs everyone that they are doing it out of compassion. More bs.
And also to create an artificial client-group of liberal voters in order to keep rational people out of power.
JD — hopefully my last comment on this topic of orbits.
Your description or “orbit” for the moon to mean a rotation about the earth at constant angular velocity and no additional angular velocity about the moon’s axis is perfectly adequate for a tidally locked moon in a circular orbit. It is perfectly adequate for a wooden horse rigidly mounted on a merry-go-round so that the nose always faces the direction of motion. It is in line with “rotation about a point” like this illustration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#/media/File:Rotation_illus.svg
However, your description rapidly runs into complications in other circumstances. For instance in an elliptical orbit, the angular velocity of the orbiting (tidally locked) moon around the earth changes as the moon orbits — larger when the moon is close and smaller when the moon is far. However, the moon’s own rotation does not follow the same change. From the earth’s perspective, such a moon wobbles forward and back every time it orbits — the angular velocity around the axis of the moon would go from slightly positive to slightly negative each orbit. This would involve the application of so-called “fictitious forces” that arise from trying to describe motion in a non-inertial reference frame.
Tim, I never indicated the Moon’s actual orbit was anything other than what it is. Like all orbiting bodies, it is more elliptical than circular. That does mean the Moon’s speed varies somewhat, based on Kepler’s Laws.
But, none of that means that the Moon “rotates on its own axis”. The Moon only has the one motion, “orbiting”.
You seem to be looking for some way to agree, without agreeing. That allows you to maintain some level of credibility, without exposing yourself to all the vile attacks that you see heaped on those focused on reality. At least you are not willing to actively support the Moon/axial rotation hoax.
Good job.
We know the moon orbits, McFly.
How can you possibly STILL not know what he means? What is wrong with you?
“How can you possibly STILL not know what he means?”
We all know quite well what he means by now. We’ve heard it 147 times.
But we all know quite well that he is wrong, and we have demonstrated that to him 147 times.
There is a difference between getting what someone means and agreeing with it, DREMT/Halp. Try to comprehend.
Here you go, Nate/Norman. Try to comprehend:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324097
As you can see from that exchange, SGW did NOT “get it”. Now, I’m sure he still disagrees anyway, but hopefully as a result of that exchange he might finally have “got it”. Understand?
I don’t know what your on about, but, as usual, it seems to be a distraction from the main argument.
“There is a difference between getting what someone means and agreeing with it”.
SGW did not get what JDHuffman meant. So I helped explain.
If you don’t want distractions from the main argument, don’t initiate them.
Nice speech. I was literally weeping.
Thick.
JD forgot to add his dramatic tagline:
“Its what the Moon is doing!”
This ranks with other such infamous lines as:
“The Arctic is screaming!”
Thick.
JD,
If I asked for a demonstration on my desk top of what it means “to orbit” — here are two possible demos. Both start by setting a large coin on a sheet of paper to represent the earth and setting a small coin nearby to represent the moon.
1) I could rotate the entire sheet of paper to move the moon in a circle around the earth.
2) I could put my finger on the small coin to move the moon in a circle around the earth.
Your paradigm is (1). My paradigm is (2). Both of these are “only one motion”.
But I think (2) is better and easier. One more simple example — “why do stars move across the sky as seen from earth?” I would say “stars move due to the rotation of the earth on its own axis, relative to the an inertial reference frame.” The earth rotates once in 23hr 56min, so stars circle around every 23:56. If the earth rotated on its axis in 14 hr, the stars would circle every 14 hr. If the earth on its axis rotated once per year, the stars would circle once per year.
You would need a much more complicated description.
Tim says: “But I think (2) is better and easier.”
Tim, you can prefer (2) all you want, but it is incorrect. (1) would be the correct model of orbiting.
“Preferences” and “beliefs” are NOT science.
PS You got the part about the stars correct. The stars APPEAR to rotate due to Earth’s axial rotation.
Got it wrong again, the stars don’t appear to rotate, they appear to revolve around the earth due to the rotation of the earth.
““Preferences” and “beliefs” are NOT science.”
Exactly! Just like your preferences and beliefs in Paradigm (1) do not make that right. You can repeat your appeal to your own authority as often as you like, but don’t expect others to agree.
With competing paradigms, scientists generally turn to Occam’s Razor. Paradigm (2) is the one that Occam’s Razor chooses for many reasons. I just gave one example for Occam’s razor. Earlier I gave another example. Over the centuries, scientist have gravitated (pun intended) to Paradigm (2) because it simply works better.
What does YOUR paradigm explain better than our paradigm?
Here’s one more riddle …
Suppose I pushed the moon out to a larger orbit so that it now took 2 months to orbit the earth. I do this by pushing straight out so as not to cause any torque on the moon. Relative to the stars, the moon is still rotating at exactly the same rate. The moon will now — according to you (Paradigm 1) — be rotating once every two months. What torqued caused this ‘new’ rotation?
In my view (Paradigm 2) the moon was already rotating once per month and it is still rotating once per month — exactly as expected with no torque applied.
Tim asks: “What does YOUR paradigm explain better than our paradigm?”
Tim, your 2) is pseudoscience. It does not match conventional definitions of “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Tim continues his confusion: “The moon will now–according to you (Paradigm 1)–be rotating once every two months. What torqued caused this ‘new’ rotation?”
No Tim, increasing the orbit would NOT change the fact that the Moon is not “rotating on it’s own axis”. To start axial rotation would require torque, which you indicated would not be provided. Orbital motion does NOT produce axial rotation. The two motions are independent.
You know very little about orbital motions, as you have now confirmed.
Perhaps if you would learn some physics….
Just when I thought bobdroege could not get any dumber: “Got it wrong again, the stars don’t appear to rotate, they appear to revolve around the earth due to the rotation of the earth.”
Surely, it will be hard for bob to beat that.
JD,
I am sure you don’t know that you can’t tell the rotational period of a star by looking at it. Even through a telescope.
Maybe by observing sunspots, you can get an estimate, but since different part of the Sun rotate at different speeds, because it’s a big ball of gas, and it’s heading right toward us.
Check this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_rotation
Seems you keep confusing rotation and revolution, better try to keep them straight.
.
“It does not match conventional definitions of “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.”
Yes. it does.
Look in any text book. Talk to any physicist. Check Wikipedia. Ask any engineer at NASA. Google “does the moon rotate” and ALL the top answers say “yes”. Clearly just about everyone but you thinks the moon fits the definition of “rotates on its axis”.
These ARE the “conventional definitions” becasue they are what conventional scientists are actually using. And all say the moon rotates. It is highly unconventional to claim the moon does not orbit.
But I am willing to listen. Can you provide links to what you consider “conventional definitions” for “rotate” and/or “orbit” from respected sources? Can you explain how these definitions imply the moon does not rotate?
Until then, your definition is simply the “unconventional JD definitions”.
con·ven·tion·al
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
“a conventional morality had dictated behavior”
synonyms: normal, standard, regular, ordinary, usual, traditional, typical, common
Tim, no it doesn’t.
Of course you can go to institutionalized pseudoscience sources and find pseudoscience. But, you don’t get to break established laws of physics.
And you certainly don’t get to misrepresent my words.
I NEVER claimed any such thing: “It is highly unconventional to claim the moon does not orbit.”
I would suggest you clean up your act, face reality, and learn some physics.
Which laws of physics (if any) say the Moon does not rotate?
Are you now admitting you don’t know the relevant physics, bob?
Nope,
I don’t think you know any physics.
Just wondering where you get your crap from, that’s all.
Got any evidence that the Moon doesn’t rotate?
Thought so.
Cause there is none.
It orbits the earth, but that’s not evidence it does not rotate.
It keeps the same face towards the earth, but no, that’s no evidence that it’s rate of rotation is nil, zero, nada, none.
tim…”Look in any text book. Talk to any physicist. Check Wikipedia. Ask any engineer at NASA. Google does the moon rotate and ALL the top answers say yes”.
None that I have read claim the Moon rotates around its own axis. There is a rotational form of translation of an orthogonal x-y axes through the Moon, with one end of the y-axis pinned to the Earth via tidal locking. However, that translational rotation is about the Earth’s axis not the Moon’s axis.
You guy’s sure like your red-herring arguments.
The Moon is not rotating around it’s own axis.
bob…”It keeps the same face towards the earth, but no, thats no evidence that its rate of rotation is nil, zero, nada, none”.
Stick to sheep farming, bob. If one face is locked to the Earth’s gravitational field, how does the Moon have an angular momentum about it’s own axis?
The Moon has one vector pointing to the Earth’s centre representing gravitational force. A vector representing angular velocity about the Moon’s axis would require a tangential vector perpendicular to the gravitational vector. In that case, the same face of the Moon could not possibly always face the Earth.
On the other hand, if you take the same gravitational vector representing gravitational acceleration and add a tangential vector indicating the Moon’s angular velocity, what you get is it’s current orbit around the Earth.
As the Moon turns in its orbit with the same face always inward, there will be a rotational translation around the Earth’s axis but none around the Moon’s axis.
Gordon,
Look at it from a distant perspective such as far away stars or galaxies.
Perched way above the solar system, your vector on the moon rotates.
Endless humor from bob!
Everything he sees is “proof’ the Moon rotates on its axis. A doorknob is all the “proof” he needs!
Funny clown.
JD, proof is for liquor and Math,
Evidence is for Science.
All the evidence points to the Moon rotating on it’s axis.
A simple model with a couple of marbles would tell you that.
“Tim, your 2) is pseudoscience. It does not match conventional definitions of orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
Really?! Then why have you said so many times that institutionalized science (ie NASA, astronomers, universities) have it wrong, and should not be trusted???
Its clear that you are not even really trying to be self-consistent anymore.
Its 47-2 at the end of the 4th quarter. The game has been in ‘garbage time’ for a while. Even your own team is booing you. Time to take a knee.
Whoops!
“Stick to sheep farming, bob. If one face is locked to the Earths gravitational field, how does the Moon have an angular momentum about its own axis?”
I explained to you, Gordon, how the Moon does have angular momentum about its own axis. And I gave you an experiment that proves it. Did you try the experiment? You have any response?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323588
“I would suggest you clean up your act, face reality, and learn some physics.”
And just where would you suggest I go to learn this physics? You have already stated that every single university physics department doesn’t understand physics. You have stated that NASA engineers don’t understand physics. Heck, I’d even take some 100 year old source (if you could find one) that supports your views.
So far, it is
* your vague memories of your physics course from decades ago
vs
* EVERY OTHER AVAILABLE SOURCE.
“Only orbiting” means “orbiting but not rotating”. Same thing it meant when David said “orbiting but NOT rotating”. Nobody is confused about this use of language apart from you.
Because you are thick.
Our self proclaimed language expert botches definitions.
“Only” means exclusive.
“Orbiting” means the act of making an orbit, i.e. following an orbital path.
So JD says in the gif on the left the moon is exclusively following an orbital path, which means in the gif on the right, it is not.
Bummer, man.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Kinda boring, though.
Since there are two motions under discussion, “orbiting” and “axial rotation”; saying that the gif on the left is “only” doing one of them does NOT imply that the gif on the right cannot be doing that one as well. Rather it implies the one on the right is doing both.
I’ll get you speaking the English language yet.
tim…” For instance in an elliptical orbit, the angular velocity of the orbiting (tidally locked) moon around the earth changes as the moon orbits ….”
Wrong angular velocity. We are talking about the rotational angular velocity of the Moon turning on its axis. Tidally-locked means there can be no such angular velocity.
*********
“This would involve the application of so-called fictitious forces that arise from trying to describe motion in a non-inertial reference frame”.
They call them fictitious because there is no force involved but an apparent acceleration. Coriolis force is a fictitious force because it is apparent only to the human eye/brain.
Same with time dilation in GRT. The dilation is fictitious even though certain equations INFER it is there.
“Tidally-locked means there can be no such angular velocity.”
And you wonder why I don’t support you. It’s BS ignorant statements like that, that would be a total embarrassment to me if I concurred.
A tidally locked moon rotates on its axis. This has been demonstrated to you with multiple animations, hands-on experiments, and with multiple engineering references to kinematic principles.
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. The animation given by Appell clearly shows the moon rotating in the left gif.
And in the right gif, that moon is exhibiting pure translational motion. You and the clown JD have everything backwards because JD is not referencing to the correct reference frame. In the gif on the right, that moon DOES in fact rotate CW, BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ROTATING reference frame that turns CCW. The correct reference frame is the non-rotating reference frame, Einstein. That is why you clowns have everything reversed.
If you clowns were on a football team, you would be running backwards and scoring for the opposition all the time.
Your ramblings are just non-sense. I seriously doubt you took any physics or you would not saying such totally stupid stuff!
And you have this mental block where you cannot grasp that an object like a tennis ball on a string, or the ball on the hammer throw cannot rotate on its axis. You are looking at the wrong reference frame, McFly. Go ask a physics professor at your local university. He will set you straight.
You are just wasting everyone’s time with your garbage.
Huffy and Halp,
Place a compass on the saddle of a racehorse. After one lap, the saddle will have rotated 360 degrees around the magnetic needle, which was generally fixed on north (perhaps some slight shifting away on the turns due to friction).
The magnetic needle was located in the middle of the saddle, not the middle of the track.
The saddle therefore competed two revolutions…..one around an external axis (orbit), and one around an internal axis (rotation).
Silly Ms Snape parodies the “science” of the “Moon Rotators” even better than I can.
Good job, Ms Snape!
Some people just have a hard time with multiple viewpoints:
Viewed from space, my kitchen table is moving around the earth’s axis at a speed of 1040 MPH. Viewed from my kitchen, it’s not moving at all.
******
Viewed from above, a horse rotates as it runs around a track. Viewed from inside the track, it obviously doesn’t.
********
Easy as pie for those with even moderate intelligence.
Just as I have been explaining, Ms Snape. From outside the track, the horse APPEARS to be rotating, but from inside the track, the horse does not appear to be rotating.
The apparent rotation is due to the orbital motion.
Easy as pie for those with even moderate intelligence.
NO, the real rotation is due to the tidal locking and the orbital motion.
How are you doing memorizing the order of the planets.
Got it yet? Then we can move to more difficult subjects.
bob, is your last name pronounced “drug”, by any chance?
Maybe, how are you doing on the first grade astronomy?
A+
And the teacher is taking me to dinner this evening.
She says afterwards we can see some stars from her bedroom.
(Just for you, since I know you don’t like reality.)
Sorry, you are still flunking.
Does your squeeze have a degree in Astronomy so she can be considered qualified to teach?
If she believes that the Moon does not rotate on its axis, I can confidently conclude that she does not.
~ 1040 mph (at the equator)
There you go, Huff. You are rejecting one viewpoint in favor of another. Both are true and valid!
I could just as easily say, “from the inside of the track, the horse only APPEARS not to be rotating.”
**********
“The apparent rotation is due to the orbital motion.”
No Huff, the apparent rotation is due to the manner in which the horse runs – it keeps one side of its body facing the inside of the track.
If it kept its body facing north, like a compass needle, then from above it would NOT appear to rotate!
Orbiting means every part of the horse moves around the track. Nothing more.
The horses orientation determines whether or not the horse appears to rotate from a given viewpoint, and the horses orientation is dictated by the horse, not the path it takes.
No one said you would be able to understand, Ms Snape. Remember the qualifier:
“Easy as pie for those with even moderate intelligence.”
Huff
One side of the earth does NOT continuously face the sun…..but it still performs an orbit.
*****
Tie a ball to a string and swing it around you:
A) The ball is forced to complete an orbit
B) the ball is forced to face the center as it does so.
C) the ball rotates WRT an external viewpoint.
D) the ball does not rotate WRT a central viewpoint
******
Put a compass on a horse’s saddle as it runs around a track:
A) the compass needle is forced to complete an orbit
B) the compass needle is forced to face north as it does so.
C) the compass needle rotates WRT an internal viewpoint
D) the compass needle does not rotate WRT an external viewpoint.
Ms Snape tells us: “One side of the earth does NOT continuously face the sun…but it still performs an orbit.
And that is because the Earth “rotates on its own axis”. If it did not, then one side would always be facing the Sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces Earth.
JDHuffman says:
…And that is because the Earth rotates on its own axis. If it did not, then one side would always be facing the Sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces Earth.
___________________________________________
If earth or moon would not rotate, one side would always face the same point on firmament in infinite distance (Alternatively a far away galaxy).
Since they don`t doe so, we know for sure that both are rotating on their axis. Earth and moon.
BTW: Without rotation on its axis, moon had no rotation-axis, and without rotation-axis, it had no poles.
I hope you agree, it has?
Fritz, you are really confused. You haven’t been doing your homework.
The Moon APPEARS to be rotating on its own axis, from a distance (far away galaxy), because it is “orbiting”. “Orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are two different, independent motions.
And “poles” have NOTHING to do with “rotating on its own axis”, if the object is not performing that motion. The Moon’s poles are created by its motion due to its orbit. As it orbits Earth, it also turns relative to the Sun. That motion creates both its poles and equator.
Anyone have an old Spirograph toy we can have sent to poor JD?
Maybe that will help with him visualizing that the moon is indeed spinning.
Just trying to help a poor soul who has lost his marbles.
Wait, marbles, maybe playing with marbles might help too.
Yes bob, clowning is all about humor.
You’re getting the idea.
JDHuffman says:
Fritz, you are really confused. You haven’t been doing your homework.
The Moon APPEARS to be rotating on its own axis, from a distance (far away galaxy), because it is “orbiting”.
___________________________________________________
It APPEARS axis-rotating and it IS axis-rotating.
Relevant is not the view from the center of its own orbit, but from some point in infinite distance.
JDHuffman says:
“Orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are two different, independent motions.
__________________________________________
Yes, exactly. Two different an independent motions.
In case of the moon, both motions have the same period.
Annother try to explain it to you:
Mount a pendular at one pole of the earth.
You will see it makes a rotation of 360° within 23h56min.
Now mount the same pendular at pole on moon.
What do you think will happen?
It will make one complete rotation within 27.322 /earth-)days.
As we know, a swinging pendular doesnt really rotate. So it must be the earth and moon which are rotating.
Actually JD, you are almost making some sense
“The Moons poles are created by its motion due to its orbit. As it orbits Earth, it also turns relative to the Sun. That motion creates both its poles and equator.”
That motion is both the moon revolving around the earth and spinning on it’s axis.
If it didn’t spin on it’s axis it would not have poles.
It has poles because it spins on it’s axis, if it didn’t spin it wouldn’t have pole.
Google says
“Earth has two geographic poles: the North Pole and the South Pole. They are the places on Earth’s surface that Earth’s imaginary spin axis passes through. Our planet also has two magnetic poles: the North Magnetic Pole and the South Magnetic Pole.”
Actually bob, you are making NO sense.
Earth’s magnetic poles are due to its dipolar magnetic field.
Try again.
Okay Fritz, I took the pendular to the Moon, and there was no axial rotation.
You may be confusing axial rotation with orbiting. The Moon orbits Earth in about 27 days. That’s probably what you are thinking of.
“And poles have NOTHING to do with rotating on its own axis, if the object is not performing that motion. The Moons poles are created by its motion due to its orbit. ”
Wiki
“The poles of astronomical bodies are determined based on their axis of rotation in relation to the celestial poles of the celestial sphere. Astronomical bodies include stars, planets, dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies such as comets and minor planets (i.e. asteroids), as well as natural satellites and minor-planet moons.”
As usual, JD tries to change the conventional definition of things to match his fake science.
Poor Nate will NEVER understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
The humor continues.
JDHuffman says:
Okay Fritz, I took the pendular to the Moon, and there was no axial rotation.
You may be confusing axial rotation with orbiting. The Moon orbits Earth in about 27 days. That’s probably what you are thinking of.
____________________________________________
I know what Im thinking of and I write what Im thinking of.
And Im not confusing anything.
I clearly said, there is orbiting AND axis-rotating (or spinning) of the moon with the same period. I.e. 27 days.
Did you see the seemingly rotation of the pendular you brought to the moon-pol or not?
Do you accept the rotation of the pendular is only seemeingly but not really?
Did you understand Nates definition of poles, he cited from Wiki?
JD,
You know the Earth’s magnetic poles and the poles around which the Earth rotates are different, don’t you.
The magnetic north pole is on Ellesmere Island and the geographic north pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
You seem to keep taking your foot out of your mouth putting it on the ground and picking the other foot up and placing it firmly back in your mouth.
fritz…”I clearly said, there is orbiting AND axis-rotating (or spinning) of the moon with the same period. I.e. 27 days.”
And you are wrong. The Moon cannot rotate around its axis with the same face fixed toward the Earth.
The notion of a synchronized rotation with the Moon’s Earth orbit is sci-fi. The chances are a bazillion to one and there is no scientific explanation as to why it should occur.
What are the chances that a Moon captured by Earth’s gravitational field would be rotating at exactly the same rate as its orbital period after capture? And what are the chances if it was rotating at that velocity that tidal locking would not have reduced its angular rotational velocity to zero?
nate…”Wiki
The poles of astronomical bodies are determined based on their axis of rotation in relation to the celestial poles of the celestial sphere”.
Why do you accept crap written in wikis as gospel? Any idiot can submit a wiki article then defend any amendments to it.
A (not ‘the’) celestial sphere, for an observer, is a hemisphere over the tangential plane of an observer on Earth. Earth’s poles are not even aligned with an observer’s celestial spheres observed by most people on Earth.
At 10 PM local time, in Vancouver, Canada, my celestial sphere’s north pole points to the star Vega, which is directly overhead. Wait an hour and that will change. Meantime, the Earth’s axis is pointed at quite an angle from Vega.
There is another celestial sphere based on projecting the Earth’s equator into a plane projecting into space. The N-S axis is then perpendicular to that plane, again, projected into space. It’s called the Equatorial Plane and obviously its N-S points in yet another direction.
Then there’s the Ecliptic Plane based on the Earth’s orbit as a plane. It has a N-S axis pointing in yet another direction. Not to be outdone, there is a Galactic Plane as well.
There is also the plane of the solar system where on average, the planetary plane is not much different than the Ecliptic plane. A few degrees here or there except for Uranus, I think it is.
I got an education on that this summer. When you watch Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus, with the first three following an orbit from rise to set, with each maxing at about 20 degrees above the southern horizon, it gives you an idea of how the planetary plane must run. Taking Venus into account in the western sky helps visualize how the plane must run.
From my perspective at 49 degrees north latitude, the Earth appears to be lying somewhat on it’s side, rotating west to east.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2018 at 7:02 PM
And you are wrong. The Moon cannot rotate around its axis with the same face fixed toward the Earth.
____________________________________________
Löok to the nightsky,and you see it can.
Gordon Robertson says:
The notion of a synchronized rotation with the Moon’s Earth orbit is sci-fi. The chances are a bazillion to one and there is no scientific explanation as to why it should occur.
___________________________________________________
The chance was 100%. And the scientific explanaton why it inevitable had to happen, is very old and simpel.
fritz…”If earth or moon would not rotate, one side would always face the same point on firmament in infinite distance (Alternatively a far away galaxy).
Since they don`t doe so, we know for sure that both are rotating on their axis. Earth and moon”.
There is no need for either to be facing a distant part of space, the Moon faces the Earth, always with one face, and the Earth is rotating on it’s own axis. The Moon is also orbiting the Earth with the same face always toward the Earth, therefore the Moon’ surface is always moving wrt background stars.
The Moon cannot rotate about it’s axis and be locked with one face to the Earth. The notion that the Moon rotates once about its axis per revolution about the Earth is sheer fantasy.
http://planetfacts.org/synchronous-rotation/
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2018 at 6:53 PM
…the Moon’ surface is always moving wrt background stars.
______________________________________________
Yes, and exactly this is the axis-rotation.
In case of the earth within 23:56 hours, in case of the moon 27.3 days.
Also called “siderial rotation”. What means: rotation relativ to a point in infinite distance.
I would prefer to call it “absolute rotation”.
A pendular for example has absolute rotation of zero. No matter where placed: It will always swing in direction of the same background stars.
Its rotation wrt earth-surface is only seemingly.
(One side of the ball is forced to face the center…)
–Bobdesbond
October 9, 2018
Funny how you take from the IPCC report only what supports your case, and leave the rest behind–
I think it is more fun that I quoted LA times and California dem senator. What are the chances of either of them being right about anything.
In terms of paying for it- you could make a profit from it. Or gain wealth. Or it could be unlike solar panels and windmills- make profit without subsidy or tax revenue use.
But to make easier, a government could agree, that a party has rights or ownership of sediment.
And government could provide place to put the sediment (given rights/ownership/lease). But it could done without such things at no cost to government/public.
They have infinitely more chance of being correct than an unashamed liar from Trump’s circus.
Again … WHO are you talking about? The Bangladeshi government?
Removing sediment from dams is a good idea.
And even a bullet train is some thing that should allowed to be done, as is putting a forest fire which could burn hundreds of homes.
But it’s not being done.
“Again WHO are you talking about? The Bangladeshi government?”
No, it would require an effective government, and obviously that is not Bangladeshi government, nor something like the present California government.
Both are failing at doing anything which benefits the people under such governments.
Doesn’t a government require money to be effective?
A government needs to be trusted to be effective.
So roughly, service the interests of it’s citizens and basically means the government has rules which it follows.
Wiki:
“The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.[citation needed] Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it.”
One can govern without rule of law- in modern sense- but a king and/or governing body must following principles which results in those governed to trust it’s leadership [the rules may not known or have class lawyers which maintains it] but rules are followed, or one has wise leadership- guided by doing what best for the people being governed.
Huffy
“And that is because the Earth rotates on its own axis. If it did not, then one side would always be facing the Sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces Earth.”
You’re just making up your own rules, Huff, and making up rules is what flat earthers, and Gordon Robertson do. It’s called pseudoscience, or “making shit up”.
Remember when I was the head of a horse and you were the ass? Good times, right?
When I was turning towards the northeast, and you were turning towards the southwest, which way was the center of the horse turning?
Answer: it wasn’t turning at all. It was, by definition, an axis of rotation.
The horse was therefore turning about its own axis, just like the earth.
Juvenile.
Hello there, I do believe your blog might be having browser compatibility problems.
When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in I.E.,
it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads
up! Aside from that, wonderful website! http://keo365.com/the-thao
This is way above my pay grade, but still :
If the moon is rotating, what is the case with David’s stone in the sling ?
When he is swinging the stone around his head, the whole assembly, stone, pouch and string, are, I believe functionally equivalent to a tire-iron being similarly swung around. It is difficult to believe that the socket at the end of the tire-iron is “rotating”, seeing that it is welded in place relative to the handle. And yet a compass set up in that socket would say, as per participants here, that it was.
In the same way, David’s stone is not moving in the pouch. Is it rotating ?
Now David lets the stone go. Does the stone rotate on its path to the giant’s forehead ? Or does it keep the same surface facing him all the way ? (I actually don’t know this, but I think it does.)
Let’s cut the gravitational bond with the earth. What happens to the Moon ? Does it rotate on it’s path away from the earth. I don’t think so.
What about freeing the earth from the sun ? Clearly it will be observed to rotate, while speeding away, as seen from any other point.
Does any of this matter ? Is there not a distinction between the way the earth and moon are acting in this scenario ? Is the earth not “rotating” in a way that the moon is not ?
Just an ignorant question.
Feel the Love,
Gordon from Montreal
gordon friesen, you are correct. The rock in the sling is NOT “rotating on its own axis” while it is being swung (in orbit). And, once released, it is still NOT “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbiting” does not cause “rotating on its own axis”. The two motions are different and independent.
Also, if the gravity between Earth and Moon were turned off, the Moon would go “flying” off in a straight line, NOT “rotating on its own axis”, as you mentioned.
The reason this issue is important is because it exposes the false religion of “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”, so well. People, without a clue, join the crowd because it is an easy way for them to feel smart. In their heads, they agree with NASA, so they must be “smart”!
NASA is just another huge bureaucracy. There are certainly some honest and talented people there, but the majority, including management, is pushing non-science agendas over truth. Funding needs to be slashed until they can re-focus on reality.
Why is it so hard to throw a knuckleball?
In baseball a pitcher tries to throw the ball with no spin.
It’s not easy.
It’s much easier to throw a ball that spins.
A rock thrown with a sling spins.
Another sports analogy, Quarterbacks who don’t throw footballs that spin don’t get employed.
Funny, bob.
A ball, thrown properly, is definitely spinning. In fact, you could see the spin with a slo-mo camera, from ALL sides!
That’s just one way we know the Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis.
Ask Phil Niekro, he made a living pitching a baseball that didn’t spin!
A somewhat famous baseball player said this about Phil’s pitch
“Trying to hit that thing is a miserable way to make a living”
324 wins and Niekro didn’t throw the baseball properly.
Add baseball to things you know nothing about.
Add baseball to one of the things you make false accusations about.
If you know something about baseball then you would know that a baseball with no spin is both hard to pitch and hard to hit.
But instead you say
“A ball thrown properly , definitely spinning.”
A properly thrown knuckle-ball is not spinning.
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge on every post.
Depends where the camera is.
barry, you might be better off sticking to statistics. The clown competition is pretty fierce.
“In fact, you could see the spin with a slo-mo camera, from ALL sides!
The camera is on Mars. Does it see one side of Earth’s moon?
Nope.
As I said, depends where you put the camera.
barry, you are attempting to reply to my comment about a spinning baseball. It does not make a difference where the slo-mo camera is placed. You would still see the rotation.
You were wrong, so now you’re trying to chance the topic to seeing one side of Earth’s moon. That’s called “obfuscation” and “distraction”. That’s what people do, rather than admit they were wrong.
“change”, not “chance”!
Would not surprise me at all that Gordon F is JD, just to keep the non-sense going.
FYI, JD fully admits that he disagrees with NASA, astronomers, and universities on this issue, ie the institutionalized science people.
Maybe he’s right and theyre wrong, but: AFIK, hes’s never been responsible for landing things on other planets, like NASA, nor teaching science to engineers who make all our stuff work, like universities.
To your question. The moon should keep rotating if gravity is turned off.
One way to see this is to realize that the far side of the moon must move faster than the near side in order to orbit a larger circle in the same time period.
After gravity is turned off, the near side cannot suddenly speed up to catch up to the speed of the far side, so it lags behind, and as a result the moon rotates as it flies off in a straight line.
nate…”JD fully admits that he disagrees with NASA, astronomers, and universities on this issue, ie the institutionalized science people”.
What’s the problem with that? Most, if not all universities teach that electric current flows positive to negative, suggesting a positive particle that carries the current. That is sheer nonsense but the paradigm has become entrenched. Even though they pay lip service to the theory as conventional current flow, it is wrong.
Just about every university teaches that HIV is a killer virus that defeats any immune system with which it comes in contact. Yet, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV is absolutely harmless to a healthy immune system. That is backed by the data which shows that in countries where immune systems are healthy, AIDS cases are a small fraction of 1% of the general population.
Prior to Australian Barry Marshall finding that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium, Heliobacter Pylori, every school once taught that stomach ulcers are caused by stress. When Marshall initially presented his hypothesis, the journal to which he applied ranked it as one of the worst hypotheses every presented to the journal.
Marshall had the courage to drink a solution containing the bacteria and because very ill, developing severe gastritis. Fortunately, antibiotics cured the infection, and today his method for the cure is applied everywhere.
It bugs me to see people butt-kissing to paradigms without having the guts to question the science (or pseudo-science) no matter how stupid the underlying premise may be. The Big Bang theory is so stupid it is not worth mentioning yet it is taught everywhere. Same with space-time, and evolution based on elements coming together in the beginning to fluke life.
And there we have it, the full Gordon treatment. Meanwhile, as I was saying to DREMT, you don’t debate honestly.
You make assertions, but when these are countered with facts, and you have no answers, you simply stop responding.
As you did when you stated that the Moon has no angular momentum about its axis. I countered this assertion with a straightforward argument, and a simple experiment. But get no response.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323588
Nate is wrong in so many areas, it is impossible to correct all his mistakes. I’ll just mention a few:
* The horse on the oval racetrack is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. It just APPEARS to be, due to traveling the oval path. Nate is unable to understand basic definitions, or process reality.
* You can throw a broom to spin, or not spin, depending on wrist action. A broom proves NOTHING except Nate is unable to understand motions.
* The Moon has ZERO angular momentum about its axis. Its only angular momentum is due to its orbit about Earth.
“* You can throw a broom to spin, or not spin, depending on wrist action. A broom proves NOTHING except Nate is unable to understand motions.”
No throwing or wrist action involved at all. Are you afraid to try the experiment?
“The Moon has ZERO angular momentum about its axis. Its only angular momentum is due to its orbit about Earth.”
More declarative statements. Pointless.
gordon friesen says:
October 10, 2018 at 12:34 AM
If the moon is rotating, what is the case with David’s stone in the sling ?
_____________________________________________
Its also rotating, and keeps its rotation when released.
Same as the hammer when hammer-throwing.
Moon of course would also stay rotating when leaving orbit.
Bob : A rock thrown with a sling spins.
This is the point I do not possess the knowledge to speak on. Please inform me clearly guys. Forget rocks (although that too is interesting in passing). If the gravitational bond with the earth is snipped, does the escaping moon spin ?
The Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. So, if gravity were somehow turned off, the Moon would continue in a straight line, and still would not be rotating.
If the moon left earth, it would still be rotating at the same rate it is rotating now.
Once every 27 days
First sentence is correct bob, only it’s ZERO, instead of once.
You are still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
JD,
Have you been huffing some boo?
You still refuse the look at problem correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKZhRzOw3Wc
barry demonstrates he still doesn’t understand motions.
“If the gravitational bond with the earth is snipped, does the escaping moon spin?”
Yes. Because it was spinning on its axis prior to the bond being snipped. The moons rotational inertia will continue (Newtons First law of motion) until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.
Don’t listen to JD. He’s a flat earther with absolutely no education in physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKZhRzOw3Wc
skeptic…”Because it was spinning on its axis prior to the bond being snipped”.
Anyone who believes the Moon rotates exactly once per Earth orbit would believe the Earth is flat. The dynamics involved for that to be the case are ridiculous to contemplate.
Don’t embarrass yourself further, Gordon. Your posts are just rambling nonsense.
gordon …from Bob : A rock thrown with a sling spins.
Not if it is shot from a modern sling shot with a vee supporting the cords. If it was like the old David/Goliath type, one cord is released before the other, imparting a rotation.
It’s the same as a discus. It is not rotating in the thrower’s hand prior to being released. If the discus had an arrow pointing at the thrower, along his arm, only an idiot would claim the discuss is rotating about its axis prior to release.
As it is released, the thrower adds a torque by pulling back on it tangentially.
The Moon orbiting the Earth represents exactly the same situation as the discuss. Only an idiot would claim it is rotating on its axis based on the fact it is seen from a different perspective as having a rotational translation around the Earth.
It would be the same for the discus. If it had a coordinate system marked on it, the coordinate system would have the same rotational translation. However, we know it’s not rotating about its axis since the thrower is gripping it tight.
If the thrower was careful to release the discuss as it passed a position perpendicular to its line of flight, so he did not add a torque, the discuss would flight with no spin.
Same with the Moon, if released in a similar position it would fly off tangentially with no spin.
Nope, wrong, Gordon.
Try spinning a broom around, and releasing it when it points North. When it lands on the ground, is it still pointing North? Nope, it has continued to spin because it has angular momentum, just like the Moon.
Sorry, standard physics requires this. Common sense as well.
While orbiting the outermost tip of the broom has much higher velocity then the inner part in your hand. Yes?
When released, the center of mass of the broom flies off in a straight line, but the outer part continues at higher velocity than inner part. As a result, the broom spins as it flies off.
This effect will happen for any extended object, even the moon.
Found one where you can see the gourd spinning after being launched with a sling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmQCUyJ4deg
gordon friesen says:
October 10, 2018 at 8:17 AM
If the gravitational bond with the earth is snipped, does the escaping moon spin ?
________________________________________
Yes. With the same rotaion-speed as before.
Gordon Friesen
https://www.google.com/search?q=syncrinus+rotation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=cJOR__EH_KztxM:
Look at the diagram on the left. Imagine the top of your screen is north, the bottom is south and so on.
When the dark side of the “moon” faces north, the opposite side faces south. As the dark side turns towards the west, the opposite side turns towards the east.
Meanwhile, there is a theoretical point in the middle of this moon that is not turning in any of those directions. By definition, an axis of rotation.
********
Even though the dark side always faces the larger circle (similar to one side of the rock always facing the person holding the sling), we see it is not prohibited from turning towards the four directions, one after the other.
******
Huffy will stupidly say, “that’s because it’s orbiting.”
Clearly, the moon on the right side also orbits the larger circle, but as it does so, its dark side only ever faces west.
Now that is interesting. The idea that it was rotating faster and now is in sync.
Does this also mean that if the rotation slows down even more, we would see it again ? And if we did see it rotating, how could we tell whether it was rotating faster or slower than sync. Or would the apparent direction of rotation be reversed ?
In this scheme, zero rotation would be whatever apparent speed of rotation maintained the compass needle pointing north, right ?
But that would be true whichever way the rotation was turning. So… you have two cases where the moon is really not rotating : when it is apparently rotating clockwise, OR, counterclockwise at some particular speed.
So how do you differentiate between those cases. Does it matter ?
And finally, I still want an answer to my original question, I have it one way from Huff and one way from Bob (at I think it was those two) : if the Moon flew away from the Earth by cessation of gravitational bond, would it be (apparently) spinning as viewed from here ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKZhRzOw3Wc
gordon…”Now that is interesting. The idea that it was rotating faster and now is in sync”.
Why should it be in sync? If tidal forces caused a drag to slow the Moon’s angular velocity, why would the drag stop there?
The more logical explanation is that the Moon does not rotate at all because it has been slowed to a standstill.
gordon friesen,
The vid I linked above is a hammer thrower releasing the ball on the end of the chain. This mimics tidal locking.
The ball continues to spin quite vigorously on release. The angular momentum includes rotation.
This is what would happen to the moon if it was suddenly released from earth gravity. It would continue to spin, except now the rotation would be observable from Earth because it was no longer tidally locked.
The flaw in the no-rotationist view is that the whole understanding is purely geocentric – the home planetary version of anthropocentric. If I can’t see it rotating from where i’m standing, it can’t be rotating at all. but from every other frame of reference it is rotating. And for celestial bodies the frame of reference is not the surface of the Earth. Otherwise we’d have the crazy notion that the sun revolves around our home planet.
As long as the tether is being held, that does model the Moon’s motion. The hammer (weight) is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its own axis”. It cannot rotate on it axis, as it is tethered.
So, barry is wrong. Orbiting does not produce axial rotation. He just wanted to find a video that would support his false belief. That ain’t science.
When the tether is being held, it is under tension. When it is released, that tension becomes a force, acting on both. barry sees the results of the interacting forces and wants to believe the hammer is rotating on its own axis. He sees what he wants to see. That ain’t science!
Science involves adherence to reality. Pseudoscience involves adherence to false beliefs.
“When the tether is being held, it is under tension. When it is released, that tension becomes a force, acting on both.”
JD, if you knew actual physics, you would know all that is nonsense.
The tension is a strong force BEFORE release. After release, not so much, considering that the ball is now RELEASED. In any case not able to produce torque, other than frictional -which slows the initial rotation. So pretty much all wrong.
Nate, why does a spring “spring back”, after being compressed?
Physics.
No one who actually understands real physics, would say, “it is under tension. When it is released, that tension becomes a force”
That’s like saying “when I turned on the engine my Camry became a car”
Stop pretending, and instead try to learn from people who do understand it.
How about the Pluto Charon system?
They are both tidally locked to each other, like the hammer thrower before release.
Astronomers have been able to measure their rotational speed, but you can look for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#/media/File:Pluto-Charon_system-new.gif
They are both spinning on their axes.
Man I need to get some sleep, but someone on the internet is wrong.
And the reason you can’t sleep is because deep down you are worried it might be you.
Can you read DREMT?
I didn’t say I couldn’t sleep.
Looks like reading comprehension is not one of your skills.
Did you look at the pretty picture showing Pluto and Charon spinning as they revolved around their barycenter.
You could have learned something, but that might be impossible.
You said, “man I need to get some sleep”.
Looks like trying to twist your way out of your own words is one of your skills.
maybe I should have been boffing the teacher too. Then I would know all this stuff.
GF
“Does this also mean that if the rotation slows down even more, we would see it again ?”
Yes, one axiel rotation per orbit is the only speed that causes the moon not rotate relative to a viewer on earth. Faster or slower and we would see all sides.
Same with a ball on a string. The ball is forced, by virtue of being held by the string, to turn towards exactly 360 degrees of direction (north, south east and west) each time it completes an orbit.
Again, this causes the ball NOT to rotate WRT the person doing the swinging.
You would think that the clowns would run out of material. But not this group. They spend all of their abilities promoting nonsense. A classic caae of “Comedy of Errors”.
Even barry joined in this time. Hey barry, how about putting together some statistics on all the nonsense the “Rotators” conjured up this time?
We had brooms, pendulars, spirographs, horses’ saddles, compasses, the list goes on and on!
And, adding to the humor, Tim Folkerts dropped by to mention “Occam’s Razor”! He sees all the attempts to spin, even throwing in a few of his own distortions, yet misses the simple reality that the Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis.
True comedy!
Here is even another attempt
From Quora, a place where all your questions can be answered
“Angular momentum is described as:
L=Iw
Where L is angular momentum, I is the moment of inertia of the moon, and w is the angular velocity of the moon.
The moment of inertia for a solid sphere like the moon is,
I=(2/5)mr^2
So L can be rewritten as
L=[(2/5)mr^2]w
The mass of the moon is,
m= 7.35×10^22kg
The radius of the moon is,
r= 1.74×10^6m
The angular velocity of the moon, which is the speed at which the moon rotates about its axis, is 1 revolution every 27 days (with the moon’s orbit around the Earth also being 27 days is the reason why we always see the same side of the moon). Changing this to radians per second gives,
w=2.7×10^-6 rad/s
Plugging all these values into the angular momentum equation gives,
L=(2/5)(7.35×10^22kg)(1.74×10^6m)^2(2.7×10^-6rad/s)
So the angular momentum of the moon is,
L=2.4×10^29kgm^2/s”
thanks to quora
It has angular momentum, which is due to it spinning.
Note that this is a different calculation from the angular momentum that the Moon has due to it orbiting the earth.
You can calculate that as well.
bob, thanks for your hilarious reply.
First, ω is angular speed, not angular “velocity”. “Speed” is a scalar, and “velocity” is a vector. You may not have learned that in your indoctrination. I’m here to help.
Next, you must substitute correct values in an equation, to have valid results.
If you need farther assistance, just ask.
Not that it will affect JD’s thinking, but, yes, ω is used for angular VELOCITY. Often there is an arrow or bold typeface, but that is tough to do in forums like this.
The magnitude of the angular velocity VECTOR — often denoted |ω| or ω — is the angular speed.
Not that it will affect Tim Folkert;s thinking, but he is unable to compete with reality.
That’s why he tries so many tricks.
And that angular velocity causes precession:
https://tinyurl.com/y8fwr7ke
Our resident genius states:
“First, ω is angular speed, not angular “velocity”. “Speed” is a scalar, and “velocity” is a vector”
Listen, Einstein, ω is defined as angular velocity:
“In physics, the angular velocity of a particle is the rate at which it rotates around a chosen center point: that is, the time rate of change of its angular displacement relative to the origin (i.e. in layman’s terms: how quickly an object goes around something over a period of time – e.g. how fast the earth orbits the sun). It is measured in angle per unit time, radians per second in SI units” [Wikipedia]
So Bob was correct and you made a fool of yourself, as usual.
This is what happens when a rank amateur, a pretender, a science bulls*****r, tries to lecture us in physics.
And no, we don’t need your dumb help.
JD, did you ever get to stand on a turntable while holding a spinning bicycle wheel?
Well bob finally did respond. I had set a trap for him, as he claimed he had studied physics. So I responded that he was wrong about ω being s velocity. He was unable to address it. That convinces me he did not know the difference. And, with all his other nonsense, I’m convinced he doesn’t know squat about physics.
I didn’t respond because I thought Tim and SGW nailed it.
So you are saying spin is a scalar, that’s news to me.
Remember your right hand rule?
Of course you don’t.
And anyway, the reason I mentioned the bicycle wheel thing is because it’s a demonstration that spin is indeed a vector.
Obviously you never took a physics class that had that prop.
How can that be a trap for me, if almost everything you post is wrong, how is another wrong post supposed to something I should jump right in and correct you on.
Anyway, still haven’t answered my question about the bicycle wheel thingy.
Its relevant in that you can push a bicycle wheel in one direction easily, that direction being in the plane of the spinning wheel.
If you try to turn in another direction you will feel the momentum pushing back against you.
You set a trap for yourself, Einstein, and fell right in it. Omega is known as angular velocity.
Oh dear.
Yeah, DREMT, poor SGW is unable to understand most things, even with clear explanations.
That may be one of the reasons he despises reality so much.
“If you need farther assistance, just ask.”
Well then Help Me Mr Wizard!
You are the brightest, most astute, most knowledgeable poster in all of internet history.
And a suave dresser and the sharpest man about town.
Cognitive dissonance does strange things to people.
bob…”From Quora, a place where all your questions can be answered
Angular momentum is described as:
L=Iw”
**********
There is a fly in the ointment, Bob. Their calculations are based on the presumption that the Moon is rotating about its axis.
L = Iw can also be written as L = rmv for a particle in a circular orbit. r is the radius and mv is the classical momentum for a particle in linear motion.
If that radial line is always pointed at the Earth, then a tangential v at its tip has to be zero. The only case where that is not true is the myth that the Moon rotates exactly once about it’s axis every Earth orbit.
Have you considered the implications of that and the odds that it could happen? Slowing the Moon’s angular momentum due to tidal forces would not be expected to stop with the Moon maintaining an angular velocity such that the Moon rotated exactly once per Earth orbit.
Uh, uh. If tangential forces slowed the Moon’s angular velocity it would keep happening till the velocity was zero. If we just happen to be living in a time when the Moon is transitioning downward, with a rotation equal to one Earth orbit, I’d consider that a colossal fluke.
Then again, you and your fellow alarmists seem to believe in colossal flukes.
Nope,
No one is assuming anything.
It is based on the observation that the Moon does not keep it’s one side pointed to any fixed point in the universe, hence it rotates.
Take two marbles, a cat’s eye for the earth and a small one for the Moon.
Holding the small one, see if you can keep one side of it pointed to a point on the wall and the same side pointed to the cat’s eye while you move the small marble in a circle around the cat’s eye.
bob, the Moon’s motion is easily modeled by a racehorse running an oval track. All the other gimmicks are just attempts to trick, confuse, and pervert.
The horse is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
REALITY is a bitch, as someone once said.
Well, No,
That model would be incorrect because the Moon revolves around the Earth in an ellipse, which is different from an oval.
You need to go back to Kindergarten so you can learn your shapes.
Super-worthwhile point, bob.
Wow, what desperation, bob!
Okay, have the racehorse run an elliptical track. No difference. The horse is still NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
Try again.
Who cares about your stupid racehorse,
The question at hand is whether or not the Moon spins.
It’s obvious and every astronomer would say it does.
Only ignorant flat-earthers disagree.
That means you JD.
Super-worthwhile comment, bob.
Looks like you wasted about as much time on that post as I did on this one.
Well done.
Yep.
Gordon,
You are just babbling nonsense. You’ve been given multiple examples, animations, simple experiments, and the fact that the moon always points the same face towards earth, means it rotates on its axis. You and Einstein have trouble with relative motion, and reference frames. That’s why you have everything backwards.
You could not understand the fact that the ball on the hammer throw rotates on its own axis, because you have this mental block (as does JD), that anything connected to a orbiting object prevents it from rotating on its axis. You clowns are looking at the wrong reference frame.
We accept that you don’t believe the moon spins. But don’t push your BS pseudo-science on the rest of us.
As far as I can see, nobody is pushing anything. It’s a discussion. If you want it to stop, then just stop discussing it, talk about something else. No one side forces any of these discussions to happen, it takes two to tango.
Yes, and people pretending to be referees cannot also play for one of the teams.
(obsessed)
Yes, rooting out hypocrisy is my obsession. You just happen to be one of biggest purveyors.
I understand, your hypocrisy is one of the things you like least about yourself, when I hold up the mirror for you.
GF
“And finally, I still want an answer to my original question, I have it one way from Huff and one way from Bob (at I think it was those two) : if the Moon flew away from the Earth by cessation of gravitational bond, would it be (apparently) spinning as viewed from here ?”
I think the situation would be similar to a fly-by meteor, spinning about its axis as it travels away from us. Over the course of 27 days, we would be able to see a full rotation with the help of a telescope.
****
No offense to Bob, but I don’t think the baseball reference is applicable.
With Earth, the rotational speed can lower or increase the delta-v of rocket needed to achieve orbit [or escape trajectories] depending on direction of the launch. So if lowers delta-v, this slows down the spin of Earth and if increases, then speeds up spin of Earth.
So if you launch lots mass of Moon- millions of tonnes of payload from the Moon can you increase or decrease the Moon’s spin.
Btw, if the Moon was used to launch Earth space power satellite to provide Earth with all the electrical power earthlings need- you would be launching millions of tonnes of payload from the Moon.
At point of lunar development where launching hundreds of tonnes from Moon [if and when lunar water is mined] lunar launch cost would be about $1000 per kg of payload launched. When launching thousands of tonnes from the Moon per year, the lunar launch cost should less than $100 per kg, and when launching 10,000 to 100,000 tonnes per year it should be less than $10 per kg. And after about 50 years of launch thousands of tonnes per year, cost should lower to about $1 per kg or less than $1000 per ton. So at time of when you could launch million of tons, that cost would be less than 1 billion dollar per million tonnes.
Or launch cost could lower to less than $100 per ton or less than 10 cents per kg, but one would probably using a mass driver rather than chemical rocket fuel. And using things nuclear Orion and/or powerful ion rockets using beam power or whatever for cheapest launch costs. But it does not how it’s done, launching millions of tons in some direction would have effect upon the spin of any body.
When millions of tons per year are launched from the Moon, I don’t think it could affect the spin of the Moon, because I don’t think it will be enough overcome the Moon’s tidal lock with Earth.
Though such force, has to do something.
Though it can nullified by 1/2 mass being launch in “opposite direction”. But assuming it’s not, it seems it could increase or decrease the moon’s orbital speed- such as go further or nearer to Earth.
Again I had some fun in reading these genial thoughts, offered by hypergenius Galbert Reinsteinson:
“The absolute temperature running average from 1895 2018 clearly shows an essentially flat trend with natural variability.
The only reason anyone would want to use an anomaly graph is to exaggerate warming by making tenths of a degree look like a mountain.”
Amazing. I tell you: AMAZING!
Because Roy Spencer, the owner of this web site, explains us since years and years why anomalies are so meaningful.
Imagine one of his students would get the job of comparing UAH’s LT and LS statospheric layers using absolute data instead of anomalies! A nightmare.
*
Let us have some more fun, and look at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qr-HBTDqqyFacfONW1sKgBaYTSK_RsOV/view
Or at this (the same data but between 1979 and 2018):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zq-ZPYQUzqkcn6j0gpsZAGa67GKXX2fb/view
And now the horrible surprise!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oys3v0ViERP-GE0kUkTnrqT1bIQsOPhM/view?
O tempora, o mores! UAH’s anomalies suddenly look soooooo big compared with those of the surface!
Dr Roy? Dr Roy! Here is Galbert Reinsteinson, do you remember? Your favorite commenter. What’s the matter with your anomalies, Roy?
No response! Oh Noes! I think we should contact Scott and Lamar, shouldn’t we? The axis of climate evil now passes thru Huntsville! That’s horrifying.
/sarc
*
Yeah. Let’s come back to more serious matters.
Somewhere upthread, Fritz Kraut wrote
“Warming trend of anomalies and absolute datas look identicall and ARE indentical.
There is not even the smallest difference.”
This is correct – at least for shorter time periods like the satellite era. I verified for UAH.
But having a look at this graph again
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oys3v0ViERP-GE0kUkTnrqT1bIQsOPhM/view?usp=sharing
we see that two differences between absolute data and anomalies are visible in the near of the 1998 and 2016 UAH ENSO peaks.
These peaks do not correspond in time nor do they in intensity:
– while in the anomalies, there are two peaks in Feb and Apr 1998, the absolute dataset peaks in July (somewhat similar happens in 2016);
– while in the anomalies, the 2016 UAH ENSO peak is higher than that for 1998, the absolute dataset shows 1998 higher than 2016, exactly as is shown by MEI, the Multivariate ENSO Index.
*
Who gives us a perfect explanation for these tiny but relevant differences?
binny…”Because Roy Spencer, the owner of this web site, explains us since years and years why anomalies are so meaningful.
Imagine one of his students would get the job of comparing UAHs LT and LS statospheric layers using absolute data instead of anomalies! A nightmare”.
**********
I have explained this before but I guess you were not listening, as usual. Idiots tend to have a low level of comprehension and the ability to understand.
Roy’s work is Roy’s work, he does what he has to do in the context of climate science. There are protocols in science. I have absolutely no problem with Roy, his work, or the fact that he uses anomalies.
My problem is with the way alarmists like you use anomalies, where the y-axis is highly amplified, making a few tenths of a degree C appear to be catastrophic. If the anomalies were presented as they should be, on the same y-axis scale as absolute temperatures, they would lose their catastrophic appeal.
Of course, no one could make out any detail on such a scale and alarmists like NOAA, GISS, Had-crut, and the IPCC would not be able to convince the public of an artificial catastrophe. The public would wonder what the heck they were raving about.
In the graph of absolute temperatures you posted, the tenths of a degree are put into proper perspective, appearing along the 0C axis, barely leaving it and showing no particular trend over more than a century.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2018 at 1:41 AM
My problem is with the way alarmists like you use anomalies, where the y-axis is highly amplified…
_________________________________________________________
What do you mean with “amplified”?
What is the “right size” or the “normal size” or the “real size”… of an y-axis??
And why do you complain only about size of y-axis of diagrams with ANOMALY-datas???
I guess you havent the slightest idea what yo are criticising.
You structure graphs to make the relevant information easily viewable. That’s the only criterion. It’s always best to fill the graph, rather than reduce the information to a narrow squiggle in the middle.
Your argument is about what information is relevant. You want to see the range. Others want to see the change.
Bindidon, very interesting!
The color choice for absolutes is hard on my color-deficient eyes, but in the first graph it appears the highs were higher in the past, and the lows were lower.
I.e., The ball can have a backspin, topspin, or spin sideways, depending in large part to the pitcher’s grip. Same arm motion regardless.
Most of my last post was nonsense. I see now that if the rotation is contrary to the revolution, the rotational movement is always visible, and if they are turning the same way, it is only at the one point that the rotation is masked.
I would seem logical that an escaped moon would continue its rotation, however, has this been tested ?
The bullet spins because of the rifling in the barrel. The football because we give i the spin. The baseball (I think) is spinning because of the way in leaves the hand. I dont think any of those are applicable.
Does the sling stone spin ?
Gordon…”I would seem logical that an escaped moon would continue its rotation, however, has this been tested ?”
Suppose we set up a 3-D coordinate axis on the Earth-Moon system so that N-S aligns with +z/-z. Suppose for argument’s sake the Moon’s orbit is in the plane formed by the x-y plane.
The Moon orbits always pointed at 0,0,0, say with a radius of 1, again for argument’s sake. Starting at x = 1, y = 0, the typical 0 degree mark, thee Moon rotates 270 degrees till it at the -ve y-axis, then it is suddenly released.
It has no rotation about it’s own axis, and at the point of release, there is no reason for it to be turning. So, it will shoot straight off along the y = -1 abscissa with no rotation about its own axis.
The notion that the Moon rotates on its axis every 28 days, thus keeping one face toward the Earth, is absurd. When the Moon was captured, the only feasible explanation, if it was rotating about its own axis and was gradually slowed by the Earth’s gravitational force, it would not slow till it was rotating once per Earth orbit, it would stop rotating altogether.
In other words, if the Earth’s gravitational field is strong enough to slow the Moon’s angular momentum around the Moon axis, why should it stop when the Moon was rotating once per Earth orbit? It would continue to slow the Moon’s internal momentum till it was stopped altogether.
No, the Moon was traveling in a straight line when it was captured and it had no angular momentum about it’s axis.
“thee Moon rotates 270 degrees till it at the -ve y-axis, then it is suddenly released”
You just said it rotated 270 degrees and then you immediately state “there is no reason for it to be turning”! It’s just rotated 270 degrees! You make no sense at all! Are you drunk?
Do you mean it made a 270 degree orbit? Even so, if it made a 270 degree orbit and was always facing 0,0,0 then it has rotated 270 degrees on its axis to keep pointed at the origin.
If it was released at 270, it would not shoot off along the y axis. I mean come on. Look down at the xy plane, draw a 270 degree arc starting at x=1 and y=0 (you don’t state whether the orbit is CCW or CW) We’ll assume CCW. So it’s release point would be at X=0, Y=-1. It would then be traveling in the positive x direction along a line at y=-1, which does not coincide with anything you said. And it would be rotating on its axis because it has turned 270 degrees.
“The notion that the Moon rotates on its axis every 28 days, thus keeping one face toward the Earth, is absurd.”
Unsupported statement. Your ignorant opinion.
“No, the Moon was traveling in a straight line when it was captured and it had no angular momentum about its axis.”
Do you mean in the problem you set up? You are just making declarative statements that make no sense at all.
Go back to the drawing board, clearly define all the variables, and lay off the booze.
Ever been to a horse race, SGW?
Take a tennis ball in your right hand and rotate it 90 degrees CCW keeping it’s center of mass in the same xyz position. The ball is rotating 90 degees on its own axis.
Now take the tennis ball and make a 1/4 orbit (CCW) while simultaneously rotating the ball 90 degreed CCW in your hand. The ball is rotating 90 degrees on its own axis while it’s center of mass is performing a 1/4 orbit. Same as David’s gif on the left, except it’s a 1/4 orbit.
Or a car race?
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2018 at 1:27 AM
It has no rotation about its own axis…
_____________________________________________
Again: Without rotating, it would have no rotation-axis. And without rotation-axis, it would have no poles. They are DEFINED by the rotation-axis.
And also again: Without axis-rotation, it would always show the same side to an observer in infinite distance.
And standig on the moon, you wouldnt see a seemingley rotating firmament. And no seemingly rotating pendular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFuhjazNNpQ
GF
Sorry, I can’t tell what’s going on with the sling. Looking back at some of the related comments, though, I think Nate’s is especially interesting:
“To your question. The moon should keep rotating if gravity is turned off.
One way to see this is to realize that the far side of the moon must move faster than the near side in order to orbit a larger circle in the same time period.
After gravity is turned off, the near side cannot suddenly speed up to catch up to the speed of the far side, so it lags behind, and as a result the moon rotates as it flies off in a straight line.”
********
The near and far sides are moving at different speeds which means they should separate. They can’t, so the result is rotation? Hurts my brain to think about.
Snape,
You can see it clearer in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKZhRzOw3Wc
The chain not only keeps spinning around as the ball rotates, it spins at the same angle and speed that makes sense from the thrower’s motion. There is considerable drag on the chain and handle, so the spin slows quickly as the ball travels through the air, which you can see more of in the first few throws in gordon’s vid.
The chain not only keeps spinning around as the ball rotates, it spins at the same angle and speed that makes sense from the thrower’s motion. There is considerable drag on the chain and handle, so the spin slows quickly as the ball travels through the air.
The tether is being pulled by the weight. The forces cause the rotation you’re seeing. If the weight could be released without the tether, it would not have any axial rotation.
(barry, you can add this to the list of nonsense. How do you plan to present the data?)
Why is it not possible for people here to have a discussion about science without you chipping in with pathetic attempts at putdowns? You and your other personalities are on a mission to stifle any scientific discussion with your personal attacks.
BDB, less of the personal attacks please.
des, take the worst thing I’ve ever said about someone, and compare it to almost every comment by SGW, Norman, Nate, Ball4, and several others. ‘
If you were fair-minded, you would be speaking to them.
What you are concerned about is seeing your pseudoscience getting squashed. You don’t have to go to that “church”, you know. Reality is for all.
I’ve said some rude things about people, but I’ll just use “the Norman defence”: they are observations, not insults, and I stand by them. Now everyone can applaud my insults, pat me on the back, and think I am someone to be taken seriously, just like they do with Norman.
“The tether is being pulled by the weight. The forces cause the rotation youre seeing.”
What forces exactly? And explain why these “forces” cause the rotation.
You are just making declarative statements without any explanation to back up the statement. (as usual)
SGW, get a large rubber band. Hold one end against your forehead. Stretch the other end as far as it will go, then let go.
Did you notice any “force” on your forehead?
No. But JD’s hand holding the other end sure felt a sting. Funny how thing’s backfire on JD running around shaking his hand.
I guess I was expecting too much from JD, like an explanation that involves physics?
All I got was some stupid comment about a rubber band and my forehead.
You STILL have not explained how the forces cause the rotation. All you said is they do. That does not cut it. And I am not expecting a real answer, because you know crap about physics.
Maybe a couple bottles of wine will help. I doubt it.
Pretty sure a couple bottles of wine aren’t going to help JD. Might dull the pain in JD’s hand though from JD’s own rubber band back fire.
What will help JD is passing a course in physics from an experienced “sponsor”.
Can either SGW or ball provide even ONE example of where they got the physics right? I’m not talking about links to wiki, or some such. I’m talking about examples where they have shown they understand some physics.
All I’ve seen from either is pseudoscience.
LMAO. JD punts. He is clueless, and cannot explain his reasoning in terms of physics. We just have to accept his declaration.
It’s much like his declaration that the moon does not rotate on its axis. He declares it so, and says we don’t get it.
i guess that’s the best we’ll ever get.
Shall I start the Jeopardy theme while waiting for an answer?
“Can either SGW or ball(4) provide even ONE example of where they got the physics right?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323043
Perfect!
Neither one can produce even one example that they understand physics.
Just all bluster and tricks.
Perfect! Just look at your last comment JD. All fake. All just your imagination.
Passing a physics course will enable JD to get the physics of blackbodies correct, the rotation of the moon correct, and understand why racehorses do not go down the backstretch ass first.
Give it a try!
Talk about bluster! Here’s your chance, JD. You are always stating how smart you are in physics, but you can’t even provide an answer. Just a pretender, as I’ve always known.
There is tensile force in the cable/tether before the ball is released. And where does that force act? Right at the center of mass of the ball. So there is no way that force can cause rotation of the ball, acting right through the center of mass. So you’ve got your work cut out for you.
SGW, have you ever been on a diving board?
What about a trampoline?
These items are REAL. Face reality. Get out of your basement and learn.
Rubber bands, diving boards, and trampolines. But no physics.
I am still waiting for an answer. You made the claim that some “forces’ cause the rotation of the hammer. Now back it up or just shut up with all your nonsense.
Crickets.
Loser.
In the hammer throw there is a unitary motion from the thrower through the chain to the ball at the end. Like the moon/earth system the barycentre is closer to the thrower than the satellite. The barycentre is nearer to the thrower than the chain handle, the chain is rigid and has all the angular momentum that the ball has. According to the non-rotationists, the chain and ball should sail away without spinning once released. In fact, the spin should be retrograde to the throwers spin because of the drag on the chain.
But angular momentum keeps the ball/chain rotating in the direction of the orbit, because there is both orbital and rotational momentum.
barry, you’ll be proud of me. I made it to the third sentence before laughing hysterically.
I smiled at “unitary motion”. I almost lost it with “barycentre”.
Then lost control with “the chain is rigid and has all the angular momentum that the ball has.”
barry, angular momentum is calculated from mass, tangential velocity, and radius. So the chain and ball will NOT have the same angular momentum.
Your entire first paragraph is irrelevant, wrong, and distracting. No wonder you came to the wrong conclusion.
Got anymore funny pseudoscience?
At point of release the chain and ball are one object with a radius up to the chain’s handle. Every part of the chain and ball has the same angular velocity.
So here’s a question for you.
Will the chain’s angular momentum be stronger or weaker than the ball’s after release?
barry, you STILL don’t understand. Even your question indicates you don’t understand.
Here’s the simple equation for orbital angular momentum, before the tether is released: L = rmv.
r = radius of center of mass
m = mass
v = instantaneous tangential speed
There is NO axial angular momentum, because the hammer can not rotate on its own axis.
Why do you continue to believe a horse is “rotating on its own axis” as it runs the oval track?
Then why does the hammer spin after release?
You avoided my question.
“Will the chain’s angular momentum be stronger or weaker than the ball’s after release?”
Do you have an answer for that?
“Heres the simple equation for orbital angular momentum, before the tether is released: L = rmv.
r = radius of center of mass
m = mass
v = instantaneous tangential speed”
Hey! Pretty good, JD.
Except too simple.
L = Iw. I = mr^2 for a point mass w = v/r.
So L = mr^2 * v/r = mvr your formula!
But for a sphere of radius R, need to add-in the I of sphere about its cm, Icm = 2/5mR^2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/parax.html#pax
Itot = mr^2 + Icm
So total L = mvr + Icm*w
This illustrates that the hammer (a sphere) DOES HAVE angular momentum about its cm!
Same for Moon!
Then why does the hammer spin after release?
Here you go, barry:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324910
DREMT,
The science that proves you wrong is just above your post, right in front of your nose. So of course you ignore it.
Good example of dishonest debate. And why its no longer a debate.
Just pointing barry in the right direction.
Barry
I’m not at all doubting that the moon or ball would keep rotating, I’m just thinking about Nate’s description. Something doesn’t seem right.
“One way to see this is to realize that the far side of the moon must move faster than the near side in order to orbit a larger circle in the same time period.”
The far side of the moon is traveling along a larger circle than the near. This relates to the moon’s angular velocity around the earth, not its angular velocity around an internal axis. If earth’s gravity is removed, one should have nothing to do with the other.
Snape, the far side of the Moon is only moving faster than the near side, RELATIVE to Earth. One side is not moving faster than the other side relative to Moon’s center of mass. Once released from Earth’s gravity, the Moon would travel in a straight line, with no axial rotation.
“One side is not moving faster than the other side relative to Moons center of mass.”
Of course it is. What is the cm doing? traveling around a medium sized circle. Its speed is intermediate between the outer and inner points of the Moon.
Im talking about tangential speed (m/s) not angular speed, Snape. Its formula is v = r*w, where r is distance from center and w is angular speed.
For Moon v(far)= (rcm +Rmoon) * w
v(near) = (rcm -Rmoon) * w
and v(cm) = rcm * w
So as it flies off, the outer point has higher linear speed than the cm, which has higher speed than the inner point.
This is exactly what is needed to produce rotation, about the cm.
To clarify, r in all formulas is distance to center of orbit.
Nate incorrectly believes: “Of course it is. What is the cm doing? traveling around a medium sized circle. Its speed is intermediate between the outer and inner points of the Moon.”
NO! You are measuring speed relative to Earth. All parts of the Moon have the same velocity as the center of mass. If gravity were turned off, the Moon would travel straight. Gravity is the force causing the orbital path. The Moon is trying to “fall” to Earth, but its orbital angular momentum keeps it on its orbital path, orbiting, is it orbits Earth, orbiting.
Orbiting.
Velocity relative to Earth. So what? Doesn’t get you out of physics jail.
Just add Earths orbital velocity around the sun to all 3 point’s velocities to find their velocities relative to inertial space.
How does adding the same number to 3 unequal numbers make them equal, brainiac?!
Your answer fails also in the hammer throw case. Velocities of all points on the hammer are relative to the ground.
Nate, here’s some more reality for you: The Earth and the Moon are NOT the same. They do NOT have the same motions.
“The Earth and the Moon are NOT the same. They do NOT have the same motions.”
You said “You are measuring speed relative to Earth.”
What does that mean to you? In your flexible world it could mean almost anything.
In science motion ‘relative to Earth’ has a specific meaning. It means to find motion relative to another frame of reference, inertial space, subtract the Earth’s velocity through inertial space.
Pretty basic stuff.
Yes Nate, and that is why you are wrong.
You’re trying to calculate the speeds of the sides of the Moon, relative to Earth. And then claiming that one side is moving faster than the other side. WRONG!
The sides move at the same velocity as the center of mass. You can calculate speeds from many different reference frames, if you don’t know what your doing, but all parts of the Moon travel with the same velocity as its center of mass.
???
Celestial mechanics Global Update, October 2018 : ± 0.000
Good point. Everyone is off-topic.
Absolutely everybody, please stop trolling.
So this is what non-trolling looks like??
No, you’re trolling.
And yet you’ve encouraged such off topic, off-reality discussion…
You are so, so, obsessed with me. Bless yer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324385
OT? Well duh. September was 0.14 C higher than average. What’s left to say that hasn’t already been discussed?
I used to enjoy it when a teacher had finished his/her lesson plan early, and the classroom discussion segued into a completely different topic. To me, that’s what’s happening here.
******
Strange, Huffy, that you are eager to scrutinize others ideas but not your own:
If the front of a horse is turning towards the northeast, and the rear is turning towards the southwest, which way do you think the center is turning?
The off-topic comment was just a joke, Snape. Try to lighten up. You don’t need to spend your entire life being so combative.
“Try to lighten up. You dont need to spend your entire life being so combative.”
Ever considered taking your own advice, Herr Wutvoll?
Ever considered not trolling?
I have a friend that I would classify as smarter that average. But, he doesn’t have a strong background in physics. Some months ago, he and his wife came to spend the weekend. I was telling him about this issue. He does not blog, and was unfamiliar with the discussion. I was able to explain both sides of the issue, using two objects on the table. He asked relevant questions, trying to understand both sides.
After about 15 minutes, he concluded correctly that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Then, I showed him some links from NASA, and a university or two. He became very confused. How could NASA and major universities be wrong? He questioned his own understanding.
Well, it took another three hours, a bunch of physics books, and two bottles of wine, to re-convince him. The power of institutionalized pseudoscience!
Now, he is trying to figure out why “institutionalized pseudoscience” has it wrong. I have my theory, so that’ll probably be a discussion topic next time we get together.
“But, he doesn’t have a strong background in physics.”
Obviously.
The blind leading the blind. They both fall in a ditch.
Too funny.
SGW, yes or no, is a racehorse rotating on its own axis as it runs a racetrack?
Does your racehorse go down the backstretch ass first?
That’s really all we need to know about your pseudoscience. You are afraid to answer the simple yes-no question.
If you answer “yes”, then you just look stupid.
If you answer “no”, then your Moon-rotating nonsense falls flat.
Reality is a bitch.
If anyone answers bob yes: Your racehorse ran down the backstretch head first.
If anyone answers bob no: Your racehorse really did go down the backstretch ass first.
The moon turns, race horses & race cars & toy locomotives turn in the turns and black bodies don’t reflect any light at all unlike the stupid but humorous cartoon JD supplied.
Understanding physics reality: laughably not going to happen with JD. More please, the crowd is roaring at JD not with JD.
When Ball4 is not babbling incoherently, he’s still babbling incoherently.
Must be the drugs.
So which answer did you mean JD?
1) Your racehorse ran down the backstretch head first.
2) Your racehorse really did go down the backstretch ass first.
See, if the racehorse is not rotating, that means the the horse is facing the same direction the whole time it runs around the track.
So if it starts down the track facing north, it continues facing north as it goes around the first two turns, and now it must be running backwards as it still faces north while going down the backstretch.
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it.
Not quite as ridiculous as saying the Moon doesn’t rotate.
Just as ridiculous as JD’s cartoon with the reflecting blackbody. All JD’s humorous, senseless physics comments would end, sadly, whenever JD passes that first physics course from an appropriately experienced “sponsor”.
JD,
I’ve answered this plenty of times. On a circular track, a race horse orbiting the track is rotating on its own axis. Same as the race car, tennis ball on a string. the hammer throw… which by the way, you still have not explained how the “forces” cause rotation of the ball.
Answering no just makes you look dumb by everyone else who understands kinematics.
You’ve been given plenty of examples of objects that continue to rotate on their own axis when released from orbit.
No, the horse just APPEARS to you to be “rotating on its axis”. You cannot understand the simple motions. Because the horse is turning, you believe that is “rotating on its own axis”.
And you tell me I’m the one that has it wrong….
Yeah, I didn’t expect clowns to understand.
The point is, one does not need much background in physics to understand the two simple motions. He is able to think for himself. He could easily figure it out by himself. It did mess with his mind when he learned that the pseudoscience was so well entrenched.
But, with more thinking and research, he was able to figure it out.
Clearly then JD’s friend was able to figure it out, you can have “orbiting” without “rotating on its own axis”, as when a racehorse goes down the backstretch ass first & the moon doesn’t rotate.
And, you can have “orbiting” AND “rotating on its own axis”, as usual when a racehorse does go down the backstretch head first and the moon shows only one side to earth in synchronous rotation.
BAD drugs!
“Well, it took another three hours, a bunch of physics books, and two bottles of wine, to re-convince him.”
Which physics books and which chapters? Did you forget to mention the psychedelic mushrooms?
I could describe my wife the same way. I mentioned the issue to her. She initially was a non-rotator.
Then she took a coffee mug and rotated it around her fist in a horizontal circle. She kept the handle always toward her. That was the natural way to make it orbit.
Then she, awkwardly, kept the handle always pointed to her fist. She saw that she had to force the handle to go all the way around the mug as it orbited her fist. She realized the cup was rotating as it orbited.
No badgering, no wine, no books, no psychedelic mushrooms required.
Nate says: “She kept the handle always toward her. That was the natural way to make it orbit.”
That motion is not just “orbiting”. It is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Nate is unable to learn. He prefers his pseudoscience.
The mug is not a vehicle with wheels.
Maybe why it is easier to see that orbiting is one motion-involving moving the cup on a circular path, while keeping its handle (orientation) fixed in one direction.
Whereas keeping the handle towards the center involves two motions at the same time, orbiting, and making the handle rotate around.
Like patting your stomach and rubbing your head (or vice versa?) Either way, its awkward.
Nate, gravity takes care of it. To try to model orbiting correctly, you must apply the forces correctly.
You don’t know how.
How does gravity ‘take care’ of it? Explain with real physics, please.
Study my comments. Or study Newton’s additions to Kepler’s Laws.
Reality is out there, you just have to appreciate it.
She could follow a simple demonstration and get the right answer.
Not too shabby!
When your date asked this question, what did you say?
“If the front of a horse is turning towards the northeast, and the rear is turning towards the southwest, which way do you think the center is turning?”
“..he and his wife …”
Oops, sorry about the lame attempt at a joke. 😒
I thought it was very funny, Snape! Well done. Now, which part of your comment was the joke?
Ball4
Sounds like the testimonial of a flat-earther, doesn’t it? His friend comes over – three hours and a couple of bottles of wine later, he leaves wondering how NASA could get it so wrong.
Snape, I have a friend DJ that I would classify average intelligence. He doesn’t have a strong background in physics. Some months ago, DJ and his wife came to spend the weekend. I was telling him about this issue. He does blog, and was familiar with the trolling. I was able to explain both sides of the issue, using two objects on the table. DJ asked relevant questions, trying to understand both sides.
After about 15 minutes, he concluded incorrectly that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Then, I showed him some links from NASA, and a university or two. He became less confused. How could NASA and major universities be so easy to understand? DJ questioned his own understanding.
Well, it took a few minutes, a bunch of physics books, and another bottle of wine, to re-convince DJ. The power of institutionalized science replaced his pseudoscience!
Now, he is trying to figure out why “some blog commenters pseudoscience” have it so wrong. I have my theory, so that’ll probably be a discussion topic next time we get together.
Have you considered the “12-Step Program”?
No, and it’s obvious your experience recommending it didn’t help you JD. Learning some physics would.
You won’t know til you try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program
As I wrote JD, your experience with it was no help “People have attended twelve-step meetings, only to find success eluded them.”
Passing a course in physics though should allow JD to begin “examining past errors with the help of a sponsor” (experienced physicist) & “making amends” for JD’s previous physics errors like blackbodies reflecting all incident radiation (JD’s incorrect cartoon green arrow).
Give it a try. Most often people resort to drugs because they can’t face reality.
Help is available.
“Give it a try.”
I already have, passing a physics course was tough but rewarding. Helped me figure out jokers like JD and those banned. Try it JD, you may even like physics.
Your “sponsor” will show you the moon turns and blackbodies do not reflect any incident light as in your bogus cartoon green arrow.
Sorry Ball4, but you haven’t given REALITY a try. You live in your imaginary world, unable to deal with reality. Just look at everyone of your comments. All fake. All just your imagination. And, there’s not even much creative imagination. Often you just mimic others.
Reality is the place to be. Get some help.
Sorry JD, but you haven’t given REALITY of blackbodies not reflecting a try. You live in your imaginary world where blackbodies reflect light and race horses go down the backstretch ass first, unable to deal with reality.
Just look at your cartoon. All fake. All just your imagination.
Reality is the place to be, where blackbodies don’t reflect, horses rotate on their own axis & run head first all around the track. Get some physics study behind you JD, all is not lost.
More misrepresentations, pseudoscience, and copy-cat gyrations from anonymous Ball4.
He never has any real physics. The few times he has tried it, he has been blatantly WRONG. Once, he couldn’t even calculate the black body temperature of a surface, knowing the flux emitted.
Couldn’t even do the basic calculation! Yet he claims to be knowledge about what black bodies can and can not absorb!
The guy is a super-clown.
Just look at your last comment JD. All fake. All just your imagination.
Passing a physics course will enable JD to get the physics of blackbodies correct, the rotation of the moon correct and understand why racehorses do not go down the backstretch ass first.
After that improvement, JD can begin the study of climate a much more complex situation actually involving thermodynamics which is currently beyond JD’s comprehension. But with some work and an experienced “sponsor” JD can start to make some sense.
Ball4 is now in full denial.
He was arguing with his hero, getan. Ball4 stated that the correct temperature would be 1452K. His hero pointed out that was incorrect. Ball4 continued, insisting that he had done an “experiment”, so the temperature was correct.
The correct temperature was 290K. He couldn’t calculate the correct temperature, so he made up one of his imaginary experiments!
The guy is a super clown.
All fake JD. All just your imagination.
Pass a physics course, make some physical sense for this crowd. Their laughing at you is contagious though as I have to admit. Just imagining your nonrotating racehorse going ass first down that back stretch sends them into hysterics.
Keep denying reality, Ball4.
Ball4 says: “BB radiation at 400 is ~1452K from experiment.”
Super clown Ball4 can’t even use the S/B equation, gets caught, and claims the figure comes from a fake experiment.
(For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 290K.)
All fake JD, just more laughs from the crowd. All just your imagination.
Pass a physics course, make some physical sense for this crowd. Their laughing at you is contagious though as I have to admit.
No Ball4, it is you that is the fake. You have no regard for truth. You believe you can state something, and it is reality. You believe you can make up your own reality. You live in fantasy land.
I have found the link to you claiming the 1452 K is the correct value, corresponding to an emitted flux of 400 Watts/m^2. You even went as far as to claim it was “from experiment”! A credible person would admit they were wrong. But, you will never accept responsibility for your incompetence. That’s why you don’t know anything, and must live in your fantasy land.
Ball4 says: “BB radiation at 400 is ~1452K from experiment.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-292923
JDHuffman
As usual you intentionally will distort posts to support your false misleading narratives. It is what you do. Why should anyone expect you to be different?
I looked at your link and the experiment Ball4 was claiming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293115
You intentionally ignore his point. The experiment was a way to show how flawed your reasoning ability is so he intentionally made up a bogus value (to show how you were making up a bogus number) to get you to admit you did not know what the heck you are talking about.
I think most, except Gordon Robertson and DRMEMT know this about you by now.
Thanks for the reminder Norman.
Yes, the result of my “experiment” ended up perfect! by getting JD so in a “huff” to correct me that JD ended up correcting JD’s own cartoon on his own initiative by writing again here: “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 290K” where JD’s own bogus cartoon shows: “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 244K”. JD demonstrates JD is wrong!
This is now the 2nd time JD unknowingly fell for my trap.
Pass a physics course JD, make some physical sense for this wary crowd in your cartoons. Their laughing at you is contagious though as I have to admit.
Weird.
JD seems to have G*e*r’s memories from March, before JD had ever appeared.
How could that be?
Ohhhhh…
Yes Norman, you can change your reality to fit your corrupt beliefs.
Nothing new.
It is not Norman, it is JD that demonstrates how to change reality to fit JD’s corrupt beliefs in JD’s own cartoon where “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 244K”, true only in JD’s corrupt beliefs because JD gets reality right (after being trapped) above: “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 290K” thank you. Nothing new.
Ball4 says, “it is not” so admits as per Ball4’s own words that “it is not” correct to say that JD was not correct as per Ball4’s own words as per test as confirmed in basic atm. phys. texts as confirmed by Ball4’s own words in a test approved by test in Ball4’s own words atm. phys. text basic describes an ice cube CAN shoot laser beams and heat the sun as per Ball4’s own words confirmed in the writings of Clausius’s own mother that heat does not but not exist upon itself but as in its own quantity the crowd laughs at Ball4 not with Ball4 in atm. phys. text as per experiment conducted by Dr Spencer confirms an ice cube shoots lasers.
Say what?
Ball4 says, “what”, so admits in Ball4’s own words that “what” JD said is true so in Ball4’s own words he admits to the delight of the crowd that Ball4 is wrong, in Ball4’s own words as confirmed by test.
DREMT, PST.
Ball4 says, “PST” so Ball4 confirms in his own words that he is conspiratorially whispering “pst…JD was correct” so in Ball4’s own words Ball4 confirms that he was incorrect, Ball4 does a lap of honor for the crowds not rotating on his own axis as confirmed by test and Ball4’s own words.
ball4…”Snape, I have a friend DJ that I would classify average intelligence”.
This from someone who claims heat does not exist, that it’s just a measure. We already have a measure for heat called temperature. How can heat be a measure of itself?
Seems bally’s friend DJ, with average intelligence, is advanced compared to ball4.
“We already have a measure for heat called temperature.”
Gordon, temperature is not heat. Clausis was someone who observed from experiment that heat does not exist in nature, so he defined his use of the term heat as just a measure. I happen to agree with Clausius & line up with his use of the term “heat” even if Gordon does not.
To be more precise, Clausius defined heat as the measure of the total KE of the particles in an object whereas temperature would only be a measure of the avg. KE of those particles actually impacting the bulb. Thus temperature is not heat.
ball4…”temperature is not heat”
Temperature is a measure of relative levels of heat. Both the Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales are based on the freezing and boiling points of water.
So, how do you get ice at 0C to 100C? You add heat. More heat makes something warmer and it has a higher temperature. Less heat makes something cooler and it has a lower temperature.
Of course, you would add kinetic energy, which in relation to atoms, is heat.
Kinetic energy is energy in motion. With atoms, the motion can be the atomic particle in motion, or it can be the electron changing levels within the atom. In either case, the KE is thermal energy, aka heat.
“Clausius defined heat as the measure of the total KE of the particles in an object whereas temperature would only be a measure of the avg. KE”
He did not say total, he said heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
“Temperature is a measure of relative levels of heat.”
No Gordon, temperature is not heat.
“You add heat.”
No Gordon, you add energy, heat does not exist to be added to any object. Kinetic energy to be specific. The total KE of the particles is thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy and heat is a measure of the total KE of the particles. Heat is not the avg. KE hitting a thermometer which is the local temperature in degrees. And yes, Clausius did mean total thermodynamic internal energy.
Ball4 says, “heat does…exist”, so in Ball4’s own words Ball4 now correctly claims that heat does exist and Ball4 cannot redefine words out of existence to suit Ball4’s agenda, Ball4 admits in Ball4’s own words that Ball4 said Ball4’s own words confirm the existence of heat, as confirmed by test and basic atm. phys. text.
Clausius.
snape…”he leaves wondering how NASA could get it so wrong”.
You and other authority worshippers regard NASA as one person with immense intelligence. It is in fact a very large organization with different scientists (more than 18,000 employees, some very good and others not so good. Do you think the higher ups at NASA check to see what their nimrods are up to?
A quick read through the NASA GISS site reveals a litany of pseudo-science.
A quick read through Gordon’s comments reveals a litany of pseudo-science.
Why the antisemitism?
DREMT
The center of rotation is the part that’s not turning. No joke.
So deadpan.
I really think you can see the spin from the hammer-throw if you slow down the replay. So the athlete is both imposing revolution and rotation.
there is an interesting corollary : that if the moon were not rotating when captured, the fact of being constrained to the revolution would itself convert some of the earlier forward momentum to rotation.
Like pin-the-tail-on-the donkey (or the corner bar). The moon comes in straight, and if released goes off spinning.
Or not. (I can’t think of any way to model this one)
gordon, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are two different motions. One does not convert to the other. The two motions are independent of each other.
You can have “orbiting” without “rotating on its own axis”, as the Moon does. And, you can have “orbiting” AND “rotating on its own axis”, as Earth does.
How long does the earth take to rotate once on its axis?
Heads up … it’s not 24 hours.
Well des, if you want to play games, which you apparently do, then you would have to indicate whether you are referring to “sidereal” or “synodic”, huh?
bob…”How long does the earth take to rotate once on its axis?
Heads up its not 24 hours”.
*********
It is 24 hours +/- a dribble wrt to the Sun. More precisely, the day is 86,400 seconds wrt the Sun.
As JD pointed out, the day is only 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds compared to the stars (stellar day).
There is a lot of nonsense about the time based on atomic clocks being different. No matter how accurate the atomic clocks are, they are still based on the second being 1/86,400 of a solar day.
Note that the second is a definition based on the Earth’s rotation wrt to sunrise. Time is a definition with no reality.
Here’s the recipe “There is this nonsense about_______”
Fill in the blank with any late 19th-20th century science.
gordon f…”…if the moon were not rotating when captured, the fact of being constrained to the revolution would itself convert some of the earlier forward momentum to rotation”.
Why? If the Moon approaches with no rotation and comes under the influence of Earth gravity, it is simply redirected in straight lines around the orbit. It’s always trying to go in a straight line but gets gently tugged along a resultant path.
The tidal effects themselves should stop the Moon spinning when captured, if it had no spin entering orbit. Same with a spacecraft sent to orbit Mars. Entering orbit does not cause it to spin.
If that same spacecraft traveling in a straight line tangential to a prospective orbit was not spinning, why would it gain a rotation as part of its orbit after capture? And when it blasted its way out of orbit later, why would it have a spin?
An orbit is a series of straight lines. An orbiting body’s momentum is always trying to force an exit from orbit in a straight line tangential to a radial line from the centre of the planet. The orbit is a resultant path created by the body’s momentum and the acceleration due to the perpendicular force of gravity.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2018 at 8:38 PM
The tidal effects themselves should stop the Moon spinning when captured, if it had no spin entering orbit.
_____________________________________________
Thats not logical.
If it had NO spin entering the orbit… there is no spin which can be stopped.
So what does the tidal effect in this case realy doe?
It does not stop the spin-it causes the spin.
Tidal effect always causes a body to spin with the same period as it is orbiting.
If the initial spinning speed is slower-tidal effect increases speed;
if its faster, tidal effect DEcreases.
JDHuffman
“The color choice for absolutes is hard on my color-deficient eyes, but in the first graph it appears the highs were higher in the past, and the lows were lower.”
Thank you for this reply, some lightyears away from Galberton Reinsteinson’s boastfulness and ignorance.
To ignore the optical difference between a chart showing a temperature span of 30 C and one showing a span of 3 C is really hard for a genius telling us where Albert Einstein had it all wrong.
I hope anthracit & white is better for you:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eCokTYXNLCM4rKb90b5q_Gfl3Qj32FAL/view
Please note that the farer you move in the past, the less data you have due to the paucity in station distribution (only about 2000 stations in the 1890’s compared with over 16000 in the 2000’s); that results in higher up and down deviations from the mean in early years, due to an insufficient averaging.
*
What now concerns the genius’ idea about the difference between UAH anomalies and those made by the rest of the world, we should simply look at this (caution: according to the genius, you see below a faked graph made out of mostly virtual stations, he knows that of course):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u8hpAViMdIgD94z-0J8yB0e_E1AHWmvg/view
binny…”To ignore the optical difference between a chart showing a temperature span of 30 C and one showing a span of 3 C is really hard for a genius telling us where Albert Einstein had it all wrong”.
I realize it must be extremely difficult for you, as an idiot, to grasp what I am talking about wrt Einstein, even though I have explained it to you in detail.
********
“Please note that the farer you move in the past, the less data you have due to the paucity in station distribution (only about 2000 stations in the 1890s compared with over 16000 in the 2000s)”
Absolutely pathetic. NOAA admitted on it’s site that it currently uses less than 1500 stations globally to create its time series. However, why would you suddenly latch onto the lame excuse that century old data is unreliable when that has been plain all along.
Only when the obvious is revealed to you on your graph do you reach for such excuses. The absolute scale simply shows no significant trend wrt to the 15C average.
skeptic…”A tidally locked moon rotates on its axis. This has been demonstrated to you with multiple animations, hands-on experiments, and with multiple engineering references to kinematic principles.
You dont know what the hell you are talking about. The animation given by Appell clearly shows the moon rotating in the left gif”.
********
So much for being on the same side as skeptics.
All you have revealed to me about kinematics is that you don’t understand the subject. Furthermore, the gif provided by DA reveals a Moon rotating about the Earth axis, not about its own axis. That kind of rotation is a rotational translation about the Earth’s axis, due to orbital constraints, not a rotation about the Moon’s internal axis.
Without tidal locking, there is a one in a bazillion chance that the Moon could be orbiting once per Earth orbit, with an exact synchronization. With tidal locking, you might as well ram a rigid body between Earth and Moon to lock them in place, provided the Earth end ran on rails so the Earth could turn underneath. You’d see exactly the same rotational translation as the Moon orbited the planet.
The problem here with you and those supporting you is that you all lack the awareness to separate the illusions of motion in your minds with the actuality. In DA’s gif, it is plain to an aware mind that the Moon is not turning on it’s own axis, rather it is going through a series of translations related to its orbit.
JD, you are so keen on explaining orbital mechanics, but I have also never seen an actual definition from you.
I would propose definitions something like this for orbital mechanics …
ORBIT: the gravitationally curved trajectory of the center or mass of an object.
ROTATION: A change in orientation of an object relative to an inertial reference frame.
TRANSLATION: a change in the center of mass of an object relative to an inertial reference frame.
Do you agree? If not — give a clear, precise definition of your own. What does your “conventional physics” use for definitions?
tim…”ORBIT: the gravitationally curved trajectory of the center or mass of an object.
ROTATION: A change in orientation of an object relative to an inertial reference frame.
TRANSLATION: a change in the center of mass of an object relative to an inertial reference frame”.
*********
Far too generalized.
The orbit has to be in relation to a body with said gravitational field. The orbit does not have to be a permanent circular or elliptical orbit, it could be a temporary parabolic or hyperbolic orbit.
The inertial reference frame is immaterial. It is the coordinate axes that are important. Therefore, a body can rotate about an axis as a body or it can rotate around it’s own central axis. Or do both at the same time.
Translation …same thing but there can be an important difference. A translation of a body from x,y,z to x’,y’,z’ means the entire frame has moved. I don’t see any provisions for that with a rotation, unless the translating axis is rotating as it moves.
Even at that, a body rotating about x,y,z would still be rotating around x’,y’,z’ post-translation.
Or, it could be rotating around it’s own centre of gravity as it translated or rotated.
tim…more info
translations describes a parallel motion of all atoms in a body. Any body rotating around another body, like the horse on the track, has all its atoms moving parallel to the track even when it is turning. At no time, are the atoms in the horse’s body rotating in circles around it’s centre of gravity.
I know this can get complex because the Earth does both. It’s atoms moving parallel to each other around the Sun orbit at the same time they are rotating around the Earth’s axis.
If the Moon has one surface tidally-locked to the Earth’s surface, it means that face is always traveling parallel to the Earth’s surface. Therefore, all other atoms on the Moon must be traveling parallel to the surface as well.
“..even when (the horse) is turning.”
Yes, Gordon, horses turn in the turns as you now agree. That’s how horses are able to run down the backstretch head first.
Continued display of ignorance.
Of course the horse is turning. How could it run an oval track, without turning?
The Rotators just cannot understand the laws of motion.
The horse “turns”, but does NOT “rotate on its own axis”. Two different, distinct, independent motions.
Same as the Moon.
“The horse “turns”, but does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.”
Insert the Queen’s English definition of “turn” in place of the term “turn”:
Per JD then, the horse in each track turn is caused by the jockey to “move in a circular direction wholly or partly around an axis or point” but does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
This is just as silly as JD stating “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 290K” then drawing the “correct cartoon” which shows “For 400 Watts/m^2, correct temperature is 244K”, true only in JD’s corrupt beliefs.
Similarly, if the race horse does NOT “rotate on its own axis” as JD writes, then it goes down the backstretch ass first. True in JD’s corrupt beliefs.
Ball4 says “does NOT “rotate on its own axis”” so in Ball4’s own words Ball4 now correctly says the horse does NOT rotate on its own axis as per Ball4’s own words confirmed by the Queen’s English definition of Ball4’s own words as confirmed by test and in basic atm. phys. text supported by the declarations of Clausius in Clausius’s own words as confirmed by test by Dr Spencer and others the moon does but does not rotate as confirmed by Ball4’s own words the crowd laughs not with Ball4 but at Ball4 in Ball4’s own words as in Clausius’s own words confirmed by basic atm. phys. text an ice cube can set fire to a horse as confirmed by test. Test, test, test, Testicle4 confirms in Testicle4’s own words that the crowd laughs at Testicle4 as confirmed by test.
DREMT, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says, “DREMT”, so in Ball4’s own words he admits that he only “DREMT” that he was correct so in his own words Ball4 admits that he was wrong about a horse rotating on its own axis, in Ball4’s own words as confirmed by Dr Spencer’s test and Clausius’s own writings.
“translations describes a parallel motion of all atoms in a body”
Incorrect. Gordon has the wrong definition of a translation. Here is a correct one:
“Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
[http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf]
Everything else he states is downhill from there.
SGW, have you ever heard of “gravity”?
See, gravity pulls an object “down”. It does not create axial rotation of the object. Once you learn about orbital physics, it is all downhill from there.
Gordon, we are making some progress!
“The orbit does not have to be a permanent circular or elliptical orbit, it could be a temporary parabolic or hyperbolic orbit.”
Certainly.
“The orbit has to be in relation to a body with said gravitational field.”
Or in relation to a set of objects (for example orbiting around a binary star or orbiting around the Milky Way).
“The inertial reference frame is immaterial. ”
The reference frame is NEVER immaterial.
“translations describes a parallel motion of all atoms in a body.”
Ah, yes! But the definition of “parallel” includes “in a straight line”. A horse running around a corner or the moon moving around the earth does NOT have the atoms moving parallel. You can’t “move parallel” and “turn” at the same time. Your description has a fatal flaw here.
******************************************
Maybe calculus can come to the rescue!
Consider our horse. Suppose he …
1) translates himself (ie walks) 1.0 mile north,
1a) turns on his own axis 90 degrees left
2) translates himself 1.0 mile west,
2a) turns on his own axis 90 degrees left
3) translates himself 1.0 mile south,
3a) turns on his own axis 90 degrees left
4) translates himself 1.0 mile east,
4a) turns on his own axis 90 degrees left
The horse has circumnavigated some point in the center of the square that is 1 mile across, returning to his original location and orientation.
A different horse …
1) translates himself 0.577 mile north,
1a) turns on his own axis 60 degrees left
2) translates himself 0.577 mile northwest,
2a) turns on his own axis 60 degrees left
…
6) translates himself 0.577 mile northeast,
6a) turns on his own axis 60 degrees left
Horse 2 has also circumnavigated some point in the center of the hexagon that is 1 mile across, returning to his original location and orientation.
Yet another horse …
1) translates himself some short distance (0.0873 miles, I believe) north
1a) turns on his own axis 1 degree left
2) translates himself a short distance slightly west of north.
2a) turns on his own axis 1 degree left
…
180) translates himself some short distance south
180a) turns on his own axis 1 degree left
…
360) translates himself some short distance slightly east north
360a) turns on his own axis 1 degree left
Finally, a horse …
1) translates himself a distance Δl north
1a) turns an angle Δθ on his own axis to the left.
…
n) translates himself a distance Δl *almost* north
na) turns an angle Δθ on his own axis to the left.
In the limit as n–> infinity, this horse is moving in a perfectly round ‘orbit’, continuously translating and rotating on his own axis. If you accept the validity of calculus, you have to accept the validity of this description of a horse turning on his own axis.
Tim, how many different tricks are you going to try? Are you keeping count?
I guess you completely forgot about Occam’s Razor, huh?
What’s the simplest solution? The horse does NOT “rotate on its own axis” as it runs the oval track.
Maybe if you come up with even more tricks….
Clearly, JD thinks “calculus” is a “trick”. And that Occam’s razor says calculus is not the way to solve problems.
Clearly Tim thinks he can corrupt physics to fit his perverted reality.
Tim, you are still avoiding the question: Is a horse “rotating on its own axis” as it laps an oval track?
It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question. But your usual spin is expected.
Of course the horse is rotating on its own axis in ANY inertial reference frame. (The horse is NOT rotating on its axis in a non inertial reference frame rotating at the same rate as the horse.)
PS: if you could suddenly cut gravity, the moon WOULD keep spinning once per month relative to the stars as it hurled off though space. No one with any understanding at all of physics would dispute this.
Thanks for confirming your clown status, Tim.
I never want to falsely accuse anyone.
If I could show you an object that continues to rotate on its axis even after the ‘orbit’ was halted, I suspect you would STILL find reasons to accept your fantasies and disregard your own eyes.
(Tim returns with more of his tricks.)
Wrong Tim, the two motions are independent. One can exist with, or without, the other. You keep [purposely?] missing the point.
tim…”translations describes a parallel motion of all atoms in a body.
Ah, yes! But the definition of parallel includes in a straight line. A horse running around a corner or the moon moving around the earth does NOT have the atoms moving parallel”
Sure it does. A solid body that is not rotating has all it’s atoms moving parallel and in the same direction.
However, we have to consider curvilinear translation.
It’s covered here:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 8 of 28:
“Note:
1. When a rigid body is in translation, all the points of the body have the same velocity and the same acceleration at any given instant.
2. In case of curvilinear translation, the velocity and acceleration change in direction as well as in magnitude at every instant.
3. In case of rectilinear translation, all particles of the body move along parallel straight lines, and their velocity and acceleration keep the same direction during the entire motion”.
*********
With a horse running around a curve you really need to break the motion into a series of straight lines. In order to push away from a straight line to form a curve, the horse must use muscles to drive it’s feet against the resistance of the track in order to turn.
A horse moving in a straight line has all its momentum going forward. In order to turn, it needs to do so incrementally.
You might argue that the motions of its feet and head is not parallel but the atoms making up the torso would mainly be going parallel.
ps. I’m claiming the motion of the Moon around the Earth is curvilinear translation. The orbit is not really a rotation since the particles making up the Moon are not turning in concentric circles around the Earth’s axis. Rather, they are turning in parallel lines that change through tiny angles.
After all, that’s what an orbit is. The Moon’s momentum is in a straight tangential line and the acceleration due to gravity gradually nudges the straight line round and round in small angles.
Gordon fails again to provide the correct and complete definition of translation. In the SAME reference Gordon provides, it defines translation on page 3:
“Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
It even gives a picture in Figure 1. None of those bodies are rotating. They are translating. A fixed line drawn through the object keeps in the same direction throughout the motion.
A horse running around a curved track is NOT translating per the definition of translation. (a line drawn through the horse will be changing direction all the time) With curvilinear tranlation, the body does not rotate at all, as is clear from the definition, and from the figures provided in that reference.
SGW STILL does not understand the definition of “translational motion”.
Crickets from Gordon.
Tim, in addition to the improvements Gordon added, you also need to realize that gravity produces “falling”. That means the force on the Moon pulls its center of mass “down”, or toward Earth. The resultant force on the Moon is the sum of its momentum and the “downward” force.
This is one of the things that the “Rotators” can not understand. A horse on an oval racetrack is NOT rotating on its own axis. It APPEARS to be if observed from outside the racetrack. But, in reality, the horse is turning on the oval track. At no time is it “rotating on its own axis”.
The silly example you see used, of moving a coffee cup around a point keeping the handle always point north, is NOT just one motion. It is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. The Rotators just do not have the ability to figure it out from the classical definitions. To believe their silliness, they must get BOTH definitions wrong. That results in 100% pseudoscience!
BTW, you never did answer the simple yea-or-no question: “Is a horse rotating on its own axis as it runs an oval racetrack”?
The answer is only ONE word, “yes” or “no”.
JD finally admits “the horse is turning on the oval track.”
Now Gordon has convinced JD to get the physics right: horses turn in the turns. Try to stick with that JD and not live up to to all my expectations.
Typical childish response.
Typical correct response. Thanks for explaining what even a child can see: a horse turns in the turns.
Ball4 says “even a child can see” which confirms that in Ball4’s own words “even a child can see” that a horse does not rotate on its own axis as confirmed by test by Dr Spencer in basic atm. phys. text and confirmed by Ball4 in Ball4’s own words.
Test.
DREMT, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says, “stop trolling”, so in Ball4’s own words he admits that he can’t “stop trolling” as Ball4 cannot stop putting other people’s words into Ball4’s own words and changing the meaning of their own words to be as Ball4’s own words, as confirmed by basic atm. phys. text and in multiple tests by various Dr Spencer’s and in Ball4’s own words an ice cube can engulf the moon, as confirmed by test.
DREMT, you’re on to Ball4’s techniques and scams.
He never was much, and now he’s even less.
JD, please stop trolling.
Ball4, PST.
ball4…”Now Gordon has convinced JD to get the physics right: horses turn in the turns”.
JD has been claiming that all along, he called it an orbit. That’s the definition of an orbit wrt to a body under the influence of a gravitational field.
The orbiting body is actually moving in a straight line and gravity tugs the line slowly into a turn. There is no rotation of the body around it’s axis and it’s not really a rotation around the Earth’s axis.
It’s a curvilinear translation. Same thing as moving in a straight line, something JD claimed a while back.
JD claims have been:
“the Moon does not rotate on its axis.”
“The Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis.”
“Pure orbital motion involves no rotating on its own axis”.
“This is what happens with a race horse runs a race track.”
On Oct 12 JD finally admitted, after the prodding of many commenters, ok:
“in reality, the horse is turning on the oval track.”
So no Gordon, JD has not been claiming that all along, JD has learned a little physics along the way, as a result JD’s claim changed, and still has a ways to go. Horses turn in the turns, as do race cars, toy locomotives and the moon. They all “run” head first around their respective closed track.
Ball4 claims, “the Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis”, so in Ball4’s own words he has learned a little physics along the way, under pressure from other commenters Ball4 now correctly concludes the moon does not rotate, in Ball4’s own words as confirmed by test.
More declarations from JD like his infamous Hammer Throw declaration.
How come you did not include rubber bands, trampolines, or diving boards in the above?
Still waiting for the Hammer Throw analysis.
Are you spinning as you wait?
(Translation: Unless you learn the relevant physics, you’re a clown.)
When did you ever study physics?
“The resultant force on the Moon is the sum of its momentum and the “downward” force.”
Again, JD, this is not something that would be said by anyone who understands basic physics. Momentum and Force DO NOT sum. They are different quantities with different units.
JUST STOP PRETENDING. And stop calling people who are trained in physics, Tim, David, me, etc, clowns. It’s just fake news.
The coffee mug experiment was mine (my wife’s).
If you actually try it, it illustrates very well that it takes ONE natural motion to move the cup in a circle, keeping the handle pointed toward you.
But to move the cup in a circle, while keeping the handle always pointed to the center requires TWO independent motions.
1. Moving the cup in a circle.
2. Rotating the handle at the ‘just right’ angular speed.
It is not natural at all. It is awkward.
Why is it awkward? Because it is not a vehicle with wheels, nor an animal with legs. On a wheeled vehicle, the wheels MUST POINT in the direction of motion. Therefore the vehicle MUST TURN to go in a circle.
NOT so the coffee mug. It has no wheels.
Same for space vehicles and Moons. They have no need for wheels.
The coffee mug is a better exemplar of how space objects move than a wheeled vehicle.
“But to move the cup in a circle, while keeping the handle always pointed to the center requires TWO independent motions.”
Your friend Tim has already explained how either way of looking at “orbital motion” can be described as just ONE motion, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324095
“If I asked for a demonstration on my desk top of what it means “to orbit” — here are two possible demos. Both start by setting a large coin on a sheet of paper to represent the earth and setting a small coin nearby to represent the moon. 1) I could rotate the entire sheet of paper to move the moon in a circle around the earth. 2) I could put my finger on the small coin to move the moon in a circle around the earth.
Your paradigm is (1). My paradigm is (2). Both of these are “only one motion”.”
Don’t worry, I’m here to keep people up to speed with the discussion.
Nate, you’re WRONG. You’re a clown. You don’t have a clue about physics. You abhor reality.
And, your “wife” only exists in your imagination.
DREMT,
The coffee mug makes very clear to even a non-expert (my wife) that two motions are required to perform the motion that the Moon does. Do you see that?
Tim’s piece paper with two coins being turned with one motion is not accurately describing the situation. It requires both the Moon and the Earth to be rotating together at the same rate. They are NOT. And there is no equivalent to the large piece of paper in space.
Some examples bring crystal clarity. Yet you insist on muddying the water.
You seem quite determined to prevent JD from learning and getting to the truth. Why?
“Tim’s piece paper with two coins being turned with one motion is not accurately describing the situation. It requires both the Moon and the Earth to be rotating together at the same rate.”
I see that this is a very desperate attempt to avoid the crystal clarity of Tim’s point. You may as well argue that in his number 2), he is arguing the Earth does not rotate at all. Of course not. The movement or lack of movement of the Earth coin is not relevant to his point.
No, in # 2 the Earths rotation is not even considered. It rotates how it wants independently of the moon…as in reality.
Shall we wade more into the weeds or should we try to look at the key points?
Do you see the two motions of the coffee mug or not, DREMT? If not then explain why.
Ridiculous.
skeptic…”Answering no just makes you look dumb by everyone else who understands kinematics.”
And there’s nothing worse in physics than someone pointing a finger and claiming someone doesn’t understand kinematics when the pointer plainly doesn’t.
You fail to distinguish between a solid body’s COG rotating around a central body’s axis, commonly called an orbit, and a body rotating about it’s own centre of gravity.
If the horse in question was a wooden horse on a carousel, fixed rigidly so it could not rotate around it’s own centre of gravity, it could still orbit the centre of the carousel as a rotation. In other words, the wooden horse is in a fixed circular orbit, rotating about the centre of the carousel.
It is not rotating around it’s own COG/axis, and the fact you don’t get that means you are an ignoramus in the field of kinematics.
Gordon sputters:
“If the horse in question was a wooden horse on a carousel, fixed rigidly so it could not rotate around it’s own centre of gravity, it could still orbit the centre of the carousel as a rotation.”
Gordon is confused by reference frames and relative motion. He ignorantly thinks that if the horse is firmly fixed to the carousel, it cannot rotate about its center of gravity. That’s because he either flunked kinematics or never took it in the first place. The wooden horse fixed to a carousel does rotate about its center of gravity wrt the non rotating reference frame. Of course it can’t rotate wrt the rotating carousel, since it is fixed to it, but that is NOT the reference frame used to describe its motion.
Assume the horse starts at the 12 noon position facing east and begins a CCW orbit. At the 9:00 o’clock position it will have rotated on its axis 90 degrees, and point south at the end of the quarter orbit. Put a compass needle on top of the horse and you will observe the horse rotating on its axis about that compass needle. This type of motion can easily be modeled into a hands-on demonstration where these motions can be easily observed.
This is elementary kinematics, Gordon. Go down to your local community college and talk to a physics professor. He’ll set you straight so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself in here.
skeptic…”Gordon is confused by reference frames and relative motion. He ignorantly thinks that if the horse is firmly fixed to the carousel, it cannot rotate about its center of gravity”.
We live in a real world, where horses fixed on a carousel do not rotate about their centre of gravity. If that was desired, we’d build them on an axle so the horses could rotate about their COG at the same time they rotated about the centre axis of the carousel.
The horse is not rotating about a central axis inside the horse, every atom making up the horse is turning in parallel lines around the carousel orbit, describing a translation. If every atom was turning in circles around an interior axis, that would be rotation.
**********
“Assume the horse starts at the 12 noon position facing east and begins a CCW orbit. At the 9:00 oclock position it will have rotated on its axis 90 degrees…”
That is not a rotation on an axis. To rotate on its axis it must be free to turn about the axis. What you have described is a translation with rotation, aka an orbit. Every atom making up the horse is following a parallel path around the carousel axis.
You’ve got the definition of “translation” wrong too. A line through the horse has to remain parallel throughout its motion to be translational. Look it up in any university reference:
“Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position” [[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
It’s not “turning in parallel lines” around the carousel orbit, like you define it. You are completely wrong. The horse would have to stay pointing the same direction throughout the whole orbit to be considered exhibiting pure translational motion.
Your kinematics is completely messed up.
SGW, your understanding of orbital motion is completely messed up.
Orbital motion is translational. That means that at any instant, all parts of the object have the same velocity (direction and speed). In the next instant, the resultant force on the object changes its direction. But all parts of the object remain traveling in that new direction.
It is the resultant force that “turns” the Moon. It is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
Nope, again JD, you pull one foot out of your mouth and shove the other one in.
SGW was objecting to the turning in parallel lines statement by our smarter than an MIT professor resident guru of all things.
Things can’t turn in parallel lines, parallel lines are straight.
Possibly if we could agree on definitions of translational motion, rotational motion and orbital motion we could get somewhere.
But still we sit and spin on the merry go round.
Yes, we are all spinning, every thing spins, you spin, I spin, the girl spins.
JD,
You continue to lecture us on physics, but have no clue how to explain your claim regarding the hammer throw.
Too funny. You don’t know what you are talking about. Translational motion requires a line drawn through the object to remain parallel throughout its motion. Your definition is screwed up as usual.
Still waiting for the answer regarding the hammer throw.
SGW, where is the evidence you understand any of the relevant physics. You can’t even understand the definitions you find.
And remember the example problem from MIT? The text clearly indicated the object on the train was NOT rotating on its axis. But, you rejected the reality.
You delude yourself. You KNOW you don’t understand this crap. You continually make a fool of yourself. You just declare stuff with no comprehension. Ths MIT problem was a simple statics problem which you did not understand at all.
Please explain the hammer throw, or just shut up.
Ibid.
A summary of the extent of JD’s knowledge of physics:
1. Rubber bands
2. Trampolines
3. Diving boards
Still waiting for the Hammer Throw force and rotation analysis……….(Jeopardy theme endlessly plays)
SGW, the summary of your knowledge of physics is…ZERO.
Lacking any knowledge, and hiding behind a fake identity, your credibility is also….ZERO.
Maybe if you learn to face reality….
Typing in all caps is another sure sign that you have lost.
Give it up, you are losing and just don’t understand.
Type in all caps and you lose.
bobd…”Things cant turn in parallel lines, parallel lines are straight”.
So, if you have a circle within a circle they are not parallel? Theoretically, a circle is an infinite number of points and each point can have a tangent line, which is a line perpendicular to a radial line from the circle centre to the point.
On each concentric circle, the tangents will be parallel. Since that point on the circle is also a point on the tangent line it is part of a parallel line.
I don’t see the problem extending that to two concentric circles, or ellipses, being parallel.
bob, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANT PHYSICS.
(Enough all caps for you?)
Gordon, the word you are looking for is concentric.
JD, so you double down on the losing.
Did you ever take any physics classes?
Or Astronomy?
Or General Science?
Again, the Moon is rotating because it does not keep one side pointing in the same direction in a fixed reference frame.
No bob, that clearly shows that it is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
Is there a physicist in the room?
Or an Astronomer?
I am just a chemist.
Though I studied physics in college, unlike some posters who clearly like to claim I don’t understand orbital mechanics.
But they keep lying.
Tell the truth JD, you have never studied physics.
12 semester hours, bomb.
(16 would have given me a minor, had I gone for it.)
bob…”the word you are looking for is concentric”.
Semantics. A circle is a curve described by the radius, r, sweeping out a closed curve as r = (x^2 + y^2)^1/2.
If you draw a line on a sphere that goes from point A to point B, is it straight or not? Now draw the line right around the sphere as a circumference. Is it a line or not? Is it straight?
Concentric circles are parallel to each other. If you don’t like them as a circle, cut them at x = 1, y = 0 and unravel them into straight lines.
The mathematician who claimed the shortest distance between two points is a straight line forgot about spheres.
JD: “The resultant force on the Moon is the sum of its momentum and the ‘downward’ force”
Obviously none of 12 semester hours seems to have stuck.
Gordon,
The shortest distance between 2 points on a sphere is a straight line through the sphere.
A line between two points on the surface of a sphere could be a great circle, but it’s still curved and not straight.
JD,
I don’t know what school you went to but 3 semesters of physics is only one set of a list of prerequisites for a course in thermodynamics at the school where I graduated.
Other prerequisites include math beyond calculus and a course covering quantum mechanics and other topics.
So you are probably short of the necessary training to be considered a reliable source on the various topics at hand.
If you have nothing beyond the three introductory physics classes you have no business correcting those with more training in thermodynamics than that.
That includes me and the Rabbet.
Thought the Rabbet wouldn’t be bragging about almost having a minor in physics.
Believe me troll, I won’t let you forget that you almost have a minor in physics.
For what it’s worth the University of Illinois won’t let me take credit for Physics 486.
Recently reactivated GHE Defense Team avatar bobdroege clearly lays out his connections…
Here’s an interesting MIT lecture that delves into translation, rotation, reference frames, and relativity, without using Einstein’s GRT.
Seems complicated but if you follow it slowly it is not beyond the average mind. This is how I learned basic relativity based on Newtonian principles.
You can use linear and vector calculus via matrices to do translation or rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kcWV6zlcRU
In the lecture at the link above there is a demonstration problem featuring a radial arm projecting from 0,0,0 in a reference frame. At the end of the radial arm is a small carousel-like body looking like a four seat Ferris wheel. It is turning perpendicular to the radial arm as if the arm is its axle. The rotating body is considered a second reference frame.
With the radial arm turning the idea is to calculate the velocity of one chair in the Ferris wheel relative to the radial arm.
Had the Ferris wheel been mounted on a separate axis so it was turning horizontally at the end of the radial arm, it would represent a similar situation to the Moon-Earth system with tidal locking. The argument presented is that the horizontal assembly is turning once as the radial arm completes a 360 degree rotation.
Herein lies the error. The Earth is being regarded as turning only once during a Moon orbit. However, the Earth turns 30 times during a Moon orbit and anyone on Earth could see all sides of the Moon during those Earth rotations.
Keep in mind that the radial arm represents one orbit of the Moon around the Earth. During this orbit, the Moon is allegedly turning exactly once.
If the radial arm pointed to 0 degrees, which is normally at x = 1, y = 0 on an x-y plane, with one of the Ferris wheel chairs point at it, how could the Ferris wheel possibly turn and still have the same chair facing the radial arm at 90 degrees unless the Ferris wheel was not turning?
By 90 degrees on the radial arm, the Ferris wheel would have had to turn 90 degrees as well in order to keep it’s angular motion in-step with the radial arm. That would mean it is pointing at right-angles to the arm.
With the Earth turning 30 times as fast, all sides of the Moon would become visible.
just draw 2 circles on a piece of paper
Color half the moon black to represent the far side of the moon
Now try and a line from the earth to the far side of the moon that does not go through the near side.
The spin of the Earth does not make the far side visible.
bob, just draw a big circle on a piece of paper
Color half of it in blue, and then paint your fist gold. Punch the other half with your fist
Now try to tear the paper in half with your teeth so that there is a line from the far side of the moon right up to Uranus
Case closed.
So you have nothing to say?
You had nothing to say.
No I was refuting Gordon’s claim that the rotation of the earth could put the other side of the moon into view.
Clearly he is daft.
But I don’t think he is in your league.
Don’t forget to tear the paper with your teeth.
bobd…”just draw 2 circles on a piece of paper
Color half the moon black to represent the far side of the moon
Now try and a line from the earth to the far side of the moon that does not go through the near side”.
*********
Better still use two coins butted together. Draw a line through both of them where they contact.
See end of posts for more.
Nate,
I see I used the term, “angular velocity” incorrectly.
I’m definitely feeling a little behind the curve (😏) when it comes to all this talk about motion.
Don’t be too hard on yourself. You might have used the wrong terminology, but I still understood your point.
snape…”Im definitely feeling a little behind the curve when it comes to all this talk about motion”.
Hang in there and keep at it. It took me a year of en.g.i.n.e.e.r.ing physics, with problem sets and tut.or.ials to get the gist of it.
Even at that, I have for.g.ot.ten more than I learned. I have to keep revi.ew.ing to get the rust out.
So, here’s the current count of “Rotators”. (Those that believe a horse is also “rotating on its own axis”, as it laps an oval track.)
Norman
Ball4
SGW
barry
Fritz
Nate
Snape
Svante
DA
Tim F.
bobdroege
bobdesbond
The list is from memory, so if corrections need to be made, please advise. Several have not fully committed to a rotating horse, so I left them off the list.
And here is the list of people who thing a horse goes down the backstretch ass first.
JDHuffman
When clowns lose, they resort to false accusations.
Nope, tried and convicted
If the horse ain’t rotating, he keeps his nose in the same direction pointed.
Can you define what you mean by rotation, cause obviously it ain’t the same as what normal people mean by rotation.
Actually a better answer would be the horse is doing neither, he’s just running around a track.
But we were at some point talking about the Moon, which is doing both rotating around an axis centered on the earth, and rotating around its own center of gravity.
goggle:
What is the difference between rotate and spin?
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object rotates always around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis is within the body, and passes through its center of mass the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin.”
So, I would say per this definition, the Moon does not “rotate upon itself” or spin.
gbaikie demonstrates, again, that he is able to think for himself.
bob says “…tried and convicted.”
Yes, it’s called an “inquisition”. It’s quite common when false religions attempt to pervert and corrupt reality.
JDHuffman,
You are the one espousing a false religion, because you are the one presenting things that are contrary to the actual reality.
The Moon doesn’t face the same direction all the time.
If you were on the Moon, you would see the Sun rise and set every 29.5 days, because the Moon is spinning on its axis relative to the Sun.
If it wasn’t spinning that would take a year.
And we wouldn’t have had to wait until Apollo 8 to see the far side of the Moon.
bob continues with his confusion: “…because the Moon is spinning on its axis relative to the Sun.”
No bob, the Moon is NOT “spinning on its own axis” relative to anything. It APPEARS as if it is due to its orbiting motion.
JDHuffman,
You have accused an Atheist of belonging to a religion, this is tantamount to an abject surrender on your part.
You have lost and are now waving a white flag of surrender.
Now comes the penalty phase.
Write 100 times on the blackboard
“The Moon is both revolving around the earth and rotating about its axis, both at the same time.”
You are defeated and have left the battlefield of logic and evidence.
boob, better get your Inquisition going again.
There’s a lot of reality out there for you to try to stifle.
Good luck with that.
Gbaikie’s quote on spin vs rotation was made by some clown named James 6 years ago on Yahoo Answers. So credible!
Of course our resident trampoline, rubber band, and diving board expert latches onto this like flies on ****.
JD
You could try presenting your ideas as a Thesis
And then supporting your ideas with facts and evidence, similar to the way scientists use the scientific method.
Your method reminds me of Jack’s writing style in The Shining.
You repeat the same thing over and over and over and all work and no play make jack a dull boy.
No, you like throwing insults and accusing people of following a religion.
You have left logic and proportion sloppy dead and like the Red Queen, you believe 6 impossible things before you have your Maypo.
You have lost
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated around an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axes (/ˈksiːz/ AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation about an external point, e.g. the Earth about the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“This precise opposition indicates the moon’s axisthe imaginary pole that runs north to south through it’s middle, and around which the moon rotatesshifted at least six degrees, likely over the course of 1 billion years, said Siegler.”
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-earth-moon-axis-billions-years.html
Scientists have already got the moon’s rotation about its axis covered, Gbaikie (and others), so you don’t have to worry about it if you don’t get it.
We would invite JD to publish a dissenting scientific paper in Nature, but it’s going to look funny when the physics involved is discussed in terms of rubber bands, trampolines, and diving boards.
“So, I would say per this definition, the Moon does not “rotate upon itself” or spin.”
Just like JD, you don’t explain your reasoning. And you left out the last sentence in this “answer” posted by James, which does clarify his explanation.
bob, look in a mirror.
Yeah, and what do I see?
I see someone who supports his position with evidence and logic.
You on the other hand do none of that.
No bob, you don’t use “facts and logic”. You use false allegations, misrepresentations, and twisted physics.
Your comments reflect your techniques:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324581
I see you got it below, finally admitting that a horse rotates as it runs around a track.
More false allegations and misrepresentations, from bob.
Avoiding reality because he cannot process facts and logic.
Still riding that horse backwards down the backstretch I see.
You can’t escape your lies.
Just keep chanting that over and over, bob.
Does your false religion teach chanting will counter reality?
I can’t answer that question because I don’t have a religion.
How does a horse go around a track if he doesn’t turn or rotate in the turns?
Hint: They call them turns.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324893
As for vocabulary, I was taught that the Earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis. So spin = rotation, and orbiting = revolution.
Now, It is claimed that the earth is rotating in 27 (wrong number ?, doesn’t matter) days, the same period as its revolution around the Earth. If it were rotating faster, we would notice that it was out of sync and see other parts of its surface. And the same thing would happen if it were rotating more slowly.
Therefore, either faster or slower that a rotation of 27days/revolution and we see clearly that it is rotating. One point on the continuum masks that rotation.
Furthermore, it is possible that an object rotating at just the right speed would be captured and thus its rotation would be masked.
We are thus being asked to believe that an object presenting the same face all the time to the body it is revolving around, may, or may not be rotating ?
That a rotating object slows down to a point where it is suddenly NOT rotating, but that if its alleged rotation slows down even further it will be patently rotating again.
I don’t have any problem with flat earth, but this is just too much.
27.5 days is the orbital period, the time it takes the Moon to circle the earth relative to the stars.
The phases of the Moon take 29.5 days, longer because the Earth is moving relative to the Sun and the Moon takes a couple days to catch up.
No bob, the difference is due to reference frames. Study “sidereal” and “synodic”.
There is NO “catching up”. You are making up more pseudoscience.
Here is a nice picture from wikipedia that explains it nicely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Moon_phases_en.jpg
But you need to understand it. You can’t learn if you don’t understand.
It’s the green wedge in the picture.
A synodic period is the time it takes for the sun to appear in the same point in the sky.
A sidereal period is the time it take for distant stars to appear in the same point in the sky.
As the earth moves counterclockwise around the sun, in the time it takes the moon to move one revolution around the earth relative to far stars, the earth has moved so it takes the moon a couple days to appear in the same place in the sky.
Close enough. Very good.
Now see if you can figure out a horse is not really “rotating on its own axis” as it runs the oval racetrack.
That’s what I said the first time, but you didn’t understand it.
The horse turns in the turns, or rotates in the turns, or spins on its axis in the turns.
An orbiting object, such as the racehorse, or the Moon, “turns” in orbit due to the forces acting on it. Those forces cause a change in direction. Those forces do NOT cause axial rotation.
Learn and understand the proper definitions.
Nate,
The description I had objected to is starting to make more sense.
With a pencil, I traced different points on the outside of a quarter as it moved around a larger circle, all the while making sure George’s head faced north.
All the circles are the same size, meaning each of the points travelled at the same speed. A point farthest from the bigger circle moves no faster than a nearer point.
On the other hand, when George’s head rotates 360 degrees with respect to north (synchronous rotation), then a point on the far side of the quarter obviously DOES move faster than a closer point. It follows a longer path.
Think of 2 circles, parallel, one inside the other.
The full circles are circumnavigated in exactly the same amount of time, but the outer circle is a greater length (cos it’s bigger), so it has to be completed at a greater speed.
For the Moon the angular velocity is exactly the same for any point on the surface. IE, each point travels a distance of 90 degrees (orbit) in the same amount of time.
But the outer surface has a slightly longer distance to travel than the inner surface, so it travels more quickly.
And this was Snapes original point:
The far side of the moon is traveling along a larger circle than the near. This relates to the moons angular velocity around the earth, not its angular velocity around an internal axis. If earths gravity is removed, one should have nothing to do with the other.
He just used the wrong words. I think he was trying to say, this relates to the moons angular momentum around the earth, not its spin angular momentum around an internal axis.
But barry, you are referencing to Earth. The Moon doesn’t care what YOU reference to, all parts of it are traveling with the same velocity as its center of mass.
Here at 8:45am JD admits JD doesn’t understand the aero physics of baseball and/or softball curve, drop, slider and rise ball pitches. JD continues to live up to all my expectations, quite humorous, more please.
Here at 10:10am Ball4 admits Ball4 doesn’t understand the physics of jet propulsion and/or basic atm. phys. as confirmed by the lack of Ball4’s words to that effect. Ball4 lives up to the crowd’s expectations, the crowd laugh at Ball4 not with Ball4 as confirmed by Dr Spencer’s test and in basic atm. phys. text and test
Yup, you’ve got him nailed, DREMT.
Huffylogic,
When George’s head remains upright (top of head always faces top of paper) as the quarter traces a circle, then George’s head is rotating.
Don’t worry Ms Snape. You’ve already made the list of Rotators.
You can’t go any lower than that in understanding orbital motions.
You have surrendered
Leave
That’s the one, bob. That’s the winner.
DREMT,
Why don’t you try making an argument and supporting it with evidence and reason.
Oh I forgot, you left your brain on the bus.
OK, but I’ll take a leaf out of your book. Here is my argument:
You have surrendered
Leave
You forgot the part where I accused you of following a religion.
You will note that I did not do that.
Bring some facts and logic and evidence and other things normally accepted in a scientific discussion.
I won’t hold my breath.
bob, you have surrendered
Leave
DREMT,
Post a logical truthful scientific argument and I will leave.
For a while anyway.
You have surrendered
Leave
“bob, you have surrendered
Leave”
Ha! DREMT proves he’s JD’s toadie. And the epitome of a troll.
Meanwhile some of us have surrendered to the fact that arguing science with JD, such as here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324740
is like arguing with my cat to stop peeing on my shoes.
Pointless.
So being the epitome of a troll is saying, “You have surrendered, Leave”?
If so, I will let bobdroege know he is the epitome of a troll.
Bob has never claimed to have surrendered. You are saying it, implying that JD has won something.
This is trollish behavior.
JD lost the argument long ago when he stopped making science or logical arguments, or responding honestly to them.
Continuing the argument is simply feeding the troll.
Stop enabling the troll.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324636
Unable to read or comprehend? So you substitute your own weird fantasies. Just stop pretending you have integrity.
Here’s you DREMT.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_p2MgPcyIks4/TMn849EMWpI/AAAAAAAAB0A/ddMN1RrfcsA/s400/Scut_Farkus_and_Grover_Dill.jpg
It doesn’t end well for toadies.
In answer to your question, I would say you appear to be unable to read or comprehend.
Huffy
We know what you’re thinking………”George’s head only APPEARS to remain upright. He’s actually getting really dizzy”.
–SkepticGoneWild says:
October 13, 2018 at 12:01 AM
“This precise opposition indicates the moon’s axisthe imaginary pole that runs north to south through it’s middle, and around which the moon rotatesshifted at least six degrees, likely over the course of 1 billion years, said Siegler.”
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-earth-moon-axis-billions-years.html
Scientists have already got the moon’s rotation about its axis covered, Gbaikie (and others), so you don’t have to worry about it if you don’t get it.–
That is interesting article. I think this version is better in ways:
— “This gives us a way to model exactly where the ice should be, which tells us about its origin and where astronauts might find a drink on future missions to the moon,” Siegler said.
“Up until this work, most researchers thought that the moon’s water was just recently deposited, as a late veneer,” Keane said. “Since we’ve shown that the moon’s water is linked to volcanic activity on the moon several billion years ago, this means it might be a time capsule of primordial water. …–
It would interesting if moon had water at surface from volcanic
source.
I have some doubts about paper in general.
First the detection is only regarding the top meter or two of lunar surface. And this surface changes over time- in terms of millions of years. This surface is very stable in terms of human time scales- apollo footprints will remain for thousands of years- even tens of thousands of years.
But Earth and Moon over millions of years are hit with space rocks and these “garden” the lunar surface- so keeping the top meter of lunar surface the same over time period of 1 billion years is not going to happen.
Also water could remain in sunlit areas, because sun is at low angle. Sunlight at low angle does heat surface much, and large areas can shaded, due to sun low angle casting long shadows.
Or most imagine lunar water can only to mined in some large deep crater- but this might not be the case.
Plus slow creep of changing axis and low intensity of sunlight from low angle of sun, could have water migrating to colder areas.
Or proof of idea might be far more ice found in deepest and coldest crater due to such migration over 1 billion years- or the process would tend to steer more water to coldest places. Rather a more random way water could end up at such regions.
But as to this endless argument, the Moon axis is currently 1.5 degree tilted in regards to the sun and shifts back and forth over a 1 year period of time.
Btw, astronauts drinking lunar water is not vaguely important.
A lunar rocket fuel market is very important.
And the price [or cost] of lunar water is important.
Lunar water at $10,000 per kg is not important.
Lunar water at $1000 per kg [and less] is very important.
NASA [or governments generally] do not lower prices- NASA can’t sell lunar water at $1000 per kg. There many reasons NASA is incapable of doing this. A simple reason is it’s illegal for NASA to do this- and merely changing US law doesn’t help matters- or there is a good reason it’s illegal.
What NASA can do is explore the Moon- it’s in there friggin charter to do this kind of stuff. And they have failed to do this.
And because NASA has been assigned the task of exploring space, this inhibts other parties from organizing to explore space. Or without NASA existing, it could have possible that we would have already explore the Moon, but we have been dependent on a government agency to do this and public spends about 20 billion dollar per year in order to have this done.
So congress has ordered NASA to explore the Moon and then Mars, and NASA has been failing to do this. NASA should have already have done it, before requiring Congress ordering it to do this- in short, NASA is a bureaucracy and NASA like herding cats.
NASA blames Congress for not providing direction and doesn’t comply when given direction. There is no doubt, congress is bad place to get any direction from, and is generally regarded that NASA needs presidential leadership [but one could argue NASA has had in the past plenty of presidential leadership- which NASA perverts- or if stupid enough, then they follow it].
Anyhow, I guess we see if Trump can do do anything- middle east peace might be easier.
–SkepticGoneWild says:
October 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM
So, I would say per this definition, the Moon does not rotate upon itself or spin.
Just like JD, you dont explain your reasoning. And you left out the last sentence in this answer posted by James, which does clarify his explanation.–
well some say the moon spins so as to face earth with same side.
And the Moon is tidally locked, it’s held in it’s position relative to Earth’s gravity well due to a gravity gradient- uneven mass distribution of the lunar sphere [as mentioned in your linked paper from Nature mag].
Due to Moon varying distance of it’s orbit with Earth, it has to be tidally locked to always have same side facing earth- there is no spin rate could work because orbits:
Perigee (10^6 km)* 0.3633
Apogee (10^6 km)* 0.4055
And the Moon wobbles sideways because it’s orbit is fighting against gravity gradient.
“Libration is manifested as a slow rocking back and forth of the Moon as viewed from Earth, permitting an observer to see slightly different halves of the surface at different times.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
And, spin goes in one direction, not one way and then going the opposite direction.
One could the Moon shimmies, but it does not spin.
Yes, I enjoyed reading that wiki page on libration some months ago.
To quote:
“The following are the three types of lunar libration:
* Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit around Earth; the Moon’s rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position. The lunar libration in longitude was discovered by Johannes Hevelius in 1648….”
Also this, from the wiki page on tidal locking:
“A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
And this from the page on orbital motion:
“The Moon is in synchronous rotation, meaning that it keeps the same face toward Earth at all times. This synchronous rotation is only true on average, because the Moon’s orbit has a definite eccentricity. As a result, the angular velocity of the Moon varies as it orbits Earth and hence is not always equal to the Moon’s rotational velocity. When the Moon is at its perigee, its rotation is slower than its orbital motion, and this allows us to see up to eight degrees of longitude of its eastern (right) far side. Conversely, when the Moon reaches its apogee, its rotation is faster than its orbital motion and this reveals eight degrees of longitude of its western (left) far side. This is referred to as longitudinal libration.”
You reads the same on astronomy sites, in books about the solar system and the moon, and pretty much everywhere.
You read very little commending the idea that the moon is not rotating, but those few places where you do come across the notion being sincerely exposited are redolent of the kinds of places where people try to convince that the Earth is flat.
But hey, it’s a new market of ideas, and one idea is as good as another, so cranks can tell us that the sun is made of iron and we must allow that this is a very real possibility. And that the world is flat.
You know, barry, it’s a “very real possibility” that gbaikie is already aware of what his own source says…
barry philosophizes: “But hey, it’s a new market of ideas, and one idea is as good as another, so cranks can tell us that the sun is made of iron and we must allow that this is a very real possibility. And that the world is flat.’
Hey barry, don’t forget the other pseudoscience, such as the Moon rotates on its own axis, or its okay to violate 2LoT if you have an imaginary black body, or CO2 is a heat source.
Lots of pseudoscience out there, huh?
It is never ok to violate 2LOT, evah! All black bodies are imaginary (and none reflect light as in JD’s cartoon as that would violate 1LOT and 2LOT) and CO2 is not a heat source as it does not burn a fuel. Someday JD may actually pass a physics course having learned all this. Not yet though as JD continues to live up to all my expectations.
–Also this, from the wiki page on tidal locking:
“A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”–
This from wiki, re Mercury:
“Mercury is tidally locked with the Sun in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, and rotates in a way that is unique in the Solar System. As seen relative to the fixed stars, it rotates on its axis exactly three times for every two revolutions it makes around the Sun.
As seen from the Sun, in a frame of reference that rotates with the orbital motion, it appears to rotate only once every two Mercurian years. An observer on Mercury would therefore see only one day every two years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
[[…see only one day every two years.” [every two Mercury years]].
So for every 2 Mercury years, the planet spins once.
And with the Moon, it doesn’t ever spin once.
It does not spin relative to Earth or the Sun. It revolves around the Sun every Earth year, and revolves around the Earth about 12 times in a Earth year.
Since Moon revolves around Earth, lunar noon at it’s equator occurs about every 29.5 Earth days.
And because Mercury orbits around sun and it does spins, it has a day which occurs every 2 Mercury years.
The Moon has days 29.5 earth days long, one side [the Nearside] of Moon gets constant “Earthshine” [though earthshine varies- it has phases like the Moon has phases as seen from Earth].
If the Moon was hit by something big enough and fast enough, it could make the Moon spin, but it will eventually stop spinning due to the gravity gradient [tidally locked with Earth’s gravity].
One could also make the Moon spin if you change mass distribution of the Moon [so as to lessen it’s gravity gradient in regards to Earth’s gravity].
Over billions of years, the Moon has been hit many times by “something big enough and fast enough”.
gbakie,
And with the Moon, it doesnt ever spin once.
It does not spin relative to Earth or the Sun.
Uh, yes, the moon rotates relative to the sun.
An observer standing on the sun would see different sides of the moon.
It’s only on Earth that you see one side of the Moon, and the page you linked describes the moon’s rotation, as do other wiki pages on the movement of the Moon.
The non-rotationist view is geocentric, but the movement of the heavenly bodies is described with a celestial reference frame.
From a geocentric point of view, the Sun orbits the Earth. This is exactly the same frame of reference used to claim that the Moon does not rotate.
–barry says:
October 14, 2018 at 6:24 PM
gbakie,
And with the Moon, it doesnt ever spin once.
It does not spin relative to Earth or the Sun.
Uh, yes, the moon rotates relative to the sun.
An observer standing on the sun would see different sides of the moon.–
An observer standing anywhere other than Earth will see different sides of Moon. Well, actually if standing anywhere within solar plane disk and standing where you can see the moon. Ie, Mars, Mercury, floating in high atmosphere of Venus, etc.
From north star, one only sees lunar northern hemisphere- but you see a part of both near and far side of the Moon- that’s interesting, you always see sunlit half moon. I can’t recall ever seeing such a view of any planet. One would see it from high polar earth orbit- so pictures are “out there” somewhere- and the Russians should have them [as lot their satellites go there].
Anyhow, the moon pole is tilted 1.5 degree in regard to the sun.
And Moon rotate every month and every year relative to sun.
–It’s only on Earth that you see one side of the Moon, and the page you linked describes the moon’s rotation, as do other wiki pages on the movement of the Moon.
The non-rotationist view is geocentric, but the movement of the heavenly bodies is described with a celestial reference frame.
From a geocentric point of view, the Sun orbits the Earth. This is exactly the same frame of reference used to claim that the Moon does not rotate.–
I talking about spin not revolution or orbit
A body in motion stays in motion and moves in a straight line [in some direction/vector].
And you also have the motion of spin which is a motion unlike something traveling in a straight line.
But if something spins on it’s axis, it keeps spinning- or momentum is also conserved as with objects moving in a straight line.
One can have an object moving in a straight line and have it spinning. And it keeps moving in one direction and it keeps spinning in one direction.
One can’t have object move in two or more direction or spinning in two or more direction unless force in used to change the direction [of either or both of spin or movement]
barry appears to be intentionally missing the point, repeatedly.
barry, the frame of reference, in this case, is the center of mass of the Moon. The Moon is NOT rotating about its center of mass. The Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”;
Now, miss the point some more….
One can’t have object move in two or more direction or spinning in two or more direction unless force in used to change the direction [of either or both of spin or movement]
Sure, but what does this have to do with the Moon? No one is saying it has two different movements or two different spins.
You’ve already agreed with the point – the Moon rotates from any viewpoint except from that of the Earth.
We do not construct our understanding of the universe from a geocentric view. The sun is not orbiting the Earth, the Moon rotates relative to the fixed stars. This rotation is synchronous with its orbit around the Earth, and the Moon has both orbital and rotational angular momentum. If the Earth disappeared, the Moon would fall into an orbit around the sun, still rotating at the speed with which it rotated when it orbited Earth.
Anyone who is avoiding the straightforward physics that proves them wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324740
and simply repeating false declarative statements, is admitting that the debate is over and they have lost.
Gbaike,
“One cant have object move in two or more direction or spinning in two or more direction unless force in used to change the direction [of either or both of spin or movement]”
Let me rewrite this to something that makes sense to me:
One cant have an object CHANGE its direction or MAGNITUDE of movement without a FORCE, or CHANGE its spin DIRECTION or MAGNITUDE without a TORQUE.
In the case of the MOON, the force is gravity, and it is CHANGING the direction of movement of the moon. But there is no Torque causing the Spin of the Moon to change.
Therefore the SPIN of the Moon is constant and independent of its orbit motion.
In the PAST, of course, there WAS torque that caused it to change its spin magnitude and tidally lock.
–Let me rewrite this to something that makes sense to me:
One cant have an object CHANGE its direction or MAGNITUDE of movement without a FORCE, or CHANGE its spin DIRECTION or MAGNITUDE without a TORQUE.–
Ok
–In the case of the MOON, the force is gravity, and it is CHANGING the direction of movement of the moon. But there is no Torque causing the Spin of the Moon to change.–
So, no Torque change.
Ok
[[[but I think there is- or Moon is tidally locked or is held by gravity gradient and which related to uneven mass of the spherical moon]]]
Now this part: “the force is gravity, and it is CHANGING the direction of movement of the moon”
Explain.
Normally, gravity doesn’t change the direction of body- though we have topics like gravity assists and altering of earth [and other bodies] orbits as with Milankovitch cycles- which are roughly effected by gravity wells: Sun and Jupiter, mainly. And satellites orbits are altered by Sun, Earth and Moon gravity wells [mostly, these bodies].
–Therefore the SPIN of the Moon is constant and independent of its orbit motion.
In the PAST, of course, there WAS torque that caused it to change its spin magnitude and tidally lock.–
So it’s constant- and what is this constant rate?
Science loves anything which is constant- it should easy to find a very exact number, particularly if very constant- as in, you can use it as another kind of clock.
Btw, if the Moon spins at constant rate.
I would propose that is good proof that God exists, or space aliens are somehow involved with Earthlings.
Or a bit like “2001 Space Odyssey”.
I think we would hear about it [constantly, endlessly]- unless there some vast and very brilliant conspiracy.
“Normally, gravity doesnt change the direction of body-”
I clearly said “the force is gravity, and it is changing the direction OF MOVEMENT of the moon.”
Should not be controversial, Gbaike.
Yes, the moon is rotating at a (very nearly) constant rate of 1 rev per 27 days.
Any slowing or speeding up is miniscule, won’t be significant for millions of years.
–Nate says:
October 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM
Normally, gravity doesnt change the direction of body-
I clearly said the force is gravity, and it is changing the direction OF MOVEMENT of the moon.
Should not be controversial, Gbaike.–
Suppose the Moon didn’t exist.
You launch a satellite from Earth [Earth without the Moon]
The rocket launch is at 5.145 degree inclination.
The launch location is at 5.145 degree latitude [North or South] so if launch due East, you will end up in a 5.145 degree inclination orbit.
You blast off with rocket straight up to reach a near earth escape velocity and trajectory goes up to distance of 363,300 km away from earth and this distance you apply rocket thrust to raise the perigee
[without doing this the orbit would return to earth distance- perhaps hit earth] and raise it so it’s 405,500 km away from Earth which give an orbit of 363,300 km by 405,500 km.
Now you moving about 1 km/sec velocity orbit around earth, which slow a bit when get further from Earth [405,500 km] and increase when you get nearer [363,300 km].
And that is orbit of the Moon. And since there is not a Moon which could effect this orbit, it will stay in this orbit.
Ok. And will that spacecraft keep the same side facing Earth?
that is not convincing. There can be different dynamics producing different effects.
Gbaikie,
Feel free to submit a dissenting peer reviewed paper to Nature, otherwise you are talking a load of rubbish.
–SkepticGoneWild says:
October 13, 2018 at 3:46 PM
Gbaikie,
Feel free to submit a dissenting peer reviewed paper to Nature, otherwise you are talking a load of rubbish.–
Who thinks the Moon spins on it’s axis?
And what do they think is the spin rate?
As noted somewhere above, Mercury does have a spin rate- it spins once every 2 Mercury years.
Mercury year is about 88 earth days, so it spin once in about 88 x 2 = 176 earth days.
How many earth days does moon take to spin once.
Does anyone in the world think that the moon on the right is spinning around its own axis?
https://tinyurl.com/ydg5xude
Hands up if you do. And explain how, if you can.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324282
(Just putting SGW’s hand up for him).
barry, if the graphics are intending to represent orbiting, then the one on the right is “rotating on its own axis”. The one on the left is NOT “rotating on its own axis”, same as the Moon.
People that don’t understand orbital motion get confused by computer graphics.
Orbiting, by itself, would appear to be rotating. That is because the object in orbit is pulled (turned) from a straight line. The horse on an oval track is also a model of orbiting. The horse is obviously NOT “rotating on its own axis”, but APPEARS to be if viewed from outside the orbit.
It’s very confusing to some people….
More unsubstantiated declarations. Stick to the rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards.
SGW likely got even more brain damage from the rubber band experiment.
He indicated he wanted to learn about tension….
The moon on the right is just changing its position as it orbits. If you draw a line through that moon, the line stays pointed in the same direction throughout its orbit, meeting the definition of translation.
SGW, you do not understand the two motions. In the right graphic, your line would point in the same direction because the Moon is BOTH orbiting and “rotating on its own axis”, in synchronous rotation.
JD,
My understanding completely agrees with the definition of translation I have referenced in multiple university engineering references. Your deluded definition, whatever the hell it is, does not agree with them. You can’t even explain the physics of the hammer throw.
You are using the wrong reference frame. You are looking at everything backwards. And all you EVER do is make declarations without support. I give my reasoning and the kinematic definitions they are based on. You don’t get this stuff because you have never taken an ounce of physics in your life.
So just shut your piehole until you can explain your viewpoint based on true kinematic principles, and not in regards to rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards.
SGW, I edited out all the misunderstandings, inaccuracies, false accusations, and insults from your comment.
There was nothing left.
Maybe try some reality? Learn some physics? Get a life?
Nope, it is the one on the left that is in synchronous rotation.
http://planetfacts.org/synchronous-rotation/
Yes bob, you can find a lot of pseudoscience on the web. That’s why it is important to have a solid grasp of the relevant physics.
You don’t want to be a fool, do you?
barry, another way to understand this is to consider a racetrack that is stretched straight. Now, run the horse down the track. Of course, the horse is not “rotating on its own axis”.
Now, imagine that the horse is somehow rotating on its own axis in such a way he will make a complete 360 degree rotation by the end of the straight track. You would see the action of “rotating on its own axis” from both sides of the track.
Now, bend the track into an oval, but imagine the horse still rotating on its own axis. You would see the action of rotating on its own axis, from both sides of the track.
In the straight only stretch, the horse rotating on its axis 360 runs heads first and ass first at times.
On the oval track, the horse rotating on its axis 360 runs head first on front stretch and head first on the back stretch. Thus, a horse is “rotating on its own axis” during the race. As is a race car and toy locomotive and the moon.
At times, I feel sorry for Ball4.
Wailing will not help your failed physics views JD. Try passing a physics course, that should help but only if you are true to your education.
He just can’t help himself. Like most addicts, he’s ruled by his delusions.
At times, I feel sorry for JD, except when laughing at JD’s entertainment & the rare occasion JD writes the correct basic physics.
Sometimes addicts can display originality, derived from their delusions. But Ball4 can only mimic others.
By George I think he’s got it.
“Now, bend the track into an oval, but imagine the horse still rotating on its own axis. You would see the action of rotating on its own axis, from both sides of the track.”
So observing from one side of the track you would see the horse head on, then one side, then his kimosabe, then the other side.
And from the other side of the track you would see the same thing.
Yep, that’s what you would see, the horse rotating on its axis.
Well done.
And that’s why the Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. If it were, we could see all sides.
Almost there,
You see it rotates on its own axis one per revolution thereby keeping the same side facing the earth so we don’t all sides.
Its hard to keep things straight when you lie.
The Moon doesn’t rotate is a lie.
Facts and logic, bob, subsets of reality.
Try it, you might like it.
And from the inside of the track you would only see one side of the horse.
That’s the reality of a horse running around the track, from the outside of the track you can see all sides, from the inside only the one side.
Same as the Moon, from Mars you can see all sides, from the Sun you can see all sides, from the Earth only one side.
bob, you’re just spinning on your own axis. You’re not going anyplace. No progress.
You could learn some orbital mechanics from this site
http://planetfacts.org/synchronous-rotation/
That’s just more of the same pseudoscience, bob.
You won’t learn physics there.
The non-rotationists have a geocentric view.
Which is in error, because the frame of reference for celestial mechanics is the fixed stars. From the surface of the Earth there is no rotation, but from the rest of the known universe the Moon spins synchronous with its orbit around the Earth.
The latter explanation is elegant because it explains what is going on from all points, whereas the non-rotationist view is unable to accommodate any frame of reference but the Earth’s.
Occam’s razor comes to mind. The moon on the right is not rotating at all.
You’re STILL wrong, barry.
You do not get to move the frame of reference. The “frame of reference” is the Moon’s center of gravity. You can try to twist, spin, and pervert the issue, but the racehorse exposes your sophistry.
The racehorse is NOT “rotating on its own axis”, as it runs the oval racetrack. BUT, it appears to be doing such from your “fixed stars”, or from outside the racetrack. But, in REALITY, it is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
Occam’s razor comes to mind. The moon on the left is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. It is only orbiting.
Now try some more twists to change reality. I enjoy your desperate nonsense.
Huffy & friends,
“Turning” is a synonym for rotation. They are basically the same thing.
A horse running on a straightaway does not need to turn WRT the four directions.
******
There is a simple test to determine whether an object is just orbiting, or whether it is also orbiting while turning/rotating about an internal axis:
– Hold a spool of string at a fixed reference point, allowing it to unwind as needed.
– Fasten the end of the string to the object in question.
– if the string wraps around the object, that is proof of axiel rotation. If not, the object is only performing one motion, an orbit.
*****
If the spool is located inside the circle of orbit, and the object is “tidally locked, so to speak, the string will not wrap around the object. No rotation.
****
If the spool is located outside the circle of orbit, and again, the object is tidally locked – the string WILL wrap around the object. Proof of axiel rotation.
*****
Takeaway: motion is relative to the frame of reference.
i find the “it rotates when released” argument to be the most conclusive.
Keep finding, gordon f.
There are a lot of facts out there.
“Switching off” gravity is analogous to letting go of the string. Things not attached to the Earth in any other way would fly off into space in a straight line that would take them away from the surface of the Earth.
But often the “finders” go into instant denial.
GF
I think you’re right, but the “wrapping” test was part of JD’s own argument. That’s the only reason I brought it up.
If someone’s a “black and white” sort of thinker, the idea that an object could be simultaneously rotating and not rotating can be hard to accept.
Barry
“Think of 2 circles, parallel, one inside the other.
The full circles are circumnavigated in exactly the same amount of time, but the outer circle is a greater length (cos its bigger), so it has to be completed at a greater speed.”
******
Yes, but consider again:
An object is following an orbit, the same side always facing north. The circle formed by a point on the inner side will be the same size, and overlap, the circle formed by a point on the far side.
As far as I can tell, only some sort of rotation will cause the two points to trace different size circles.
Well, yes.
Or, you could argue that for the two circles to overlap, there would have to be some sort of rotation.
But, you’re not a “black and white” sort of thinker, so you can probably appreciate it both ways, without having to insist on one.
Interestingly, only in the 2 cases mentioned above do you get two perfect circles.
barry, do train tracks cross over themselves?
People, what is going on with this thread!?
Scrolling down, it makes me feel like I’ve entered some parallel, topsy-turvy dimension, where the concept of DNFTT has been forever replaced by its opposite extreme, D-indeed-and-endlessly-FTT …
Why?
Maybe the lack of warming is making people upset?
I would like more warming and I think we get a bit in next month or so,
Anyhow, I meant to link to Richard Lindzen’s lecture posted at watts up. First the cartoon:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/josh-livetoons-the-2018-lindzen-lecture-which-demolishes-climate-claims/
And other post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/09/richard-lindzen-lecture-at-gwpf-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/
The two culture thing is interesting.
And Richard provides a description of global climate.
He a lukewarmer- like myself I think there is some warming effect from radiant effect of “greenhouse gases” with water vapor being major radiant effect. And water vapor having other warming effects other it’s radiant effect. And clouds and water vapor have largest radiant effect [greenhouse effect].
And you don’t agree, yes?
I think the oceans have warming effect.
But as my brief description, I think important aspect is that we current in Ice Age or icebox climate.
And in terms of this climate, the average temperature of entire ocean has been staying within the range of 1 to 5 C.
And the temperature of the ocean determines global average temperature, if ocean were 6 C, we would have higher average global temperature and if it were 2 C, we would have lower global temperature. And currently [last thousand years] it’s been about 3.5 C. So if it were to warm to 4 C, we would have a higher global average temperature. A warming world with higher average temperature and not world which is hotter.
If ocean warm to 4 C, then there would be a lot thermal expansion- sea levels would rise more than 1 meter.
And it doesn’t seem we going to get 1 meter rise in sea level within next century [or within next two centuries]. And thinking beyond say 50 years, doesn’t make much sense.
In terms of changes occurring in shorter time periods, what you call global or regional weather, the main aspect of about global temperature is ocean surface waters. Global average surface temperature is about 17 C which immediately effect or reflects the global average temperature.
It seems if one predict ocean surface temperature over say next couple of decades, that would be somewhat important.
It seems the current solar min could have an effect upon global weather over next couple decades.
Unfortunately Lindzen is still making the same mistakes he did about 10 years ago.
Just one example:“Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget”
He’s smarter than this!
–Just one example:“Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget”
He’s smarter than this!–
Before this he said:
“The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least controversial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the description.
I will also try, despite Snow’s observations, to make the description intelligible to the
non-scientist.”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
So for someone who has scientific background including an alarmist who imagines Earth will become Venus- it should not be controversial.
Or he not arguing his case, instead he talking about what is widely “accepted”- by all including by alarmists such as Hansen, Mann, etc [assuming, they have a clue].
And regarding above link, James Delingpole, said:
“Just to repeat that last important point: Lindzen believes that there is no real-world evidence that supports man-made global warming theory. None.”
Following, Lindzen quote:
“… Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, contradict what both physical theory and empirical data show. The purpose of these claims is obviously to frighten and befuddle the public, and to make it seem like there is evidence where, in fact, there is none.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/09/prof-richard-lindzen-demolishes-the-climate-change-scare/
I would guess Lindzen, assumes there is some warming effect from a doubling of CO2- and he has written papers regarding how much it might be.
Though there no attempt by anyone which makes the case that extreme weather is caused by CO2- and certainly no evidence of it, either.
Kristian, how could I forget? And also, I remembered Bart. I’ll add both to the list.
The list should be called “Spinners”, rather than “Rotators”, for obvious reasons.
Again, these are people that believe a horse is also “rotating on its own axis”, as it laps an oval track. IOW, making two different motions at the same time.
Norman Grinvalds
David Appell
Tim Folkerts
Ball4
SGW
barry
Kristian
Bart
Fritz
Nate
Snape
Svante
bobdroege
bobdesbond
The list is from memory, so if corrections need to be made, please advise. Several have not fully committed to a rotating horse, so I left them off the list.
Accounting for sock puppets, I guess that makes it 14 to 2 against you.
Several here are capable of thinking for themselves. I have identified about 14 that have “constipation” of the brain, and “diarrhea” of the keyboard.
“Several here are capable of thinking for themselves.
Indeed. As I said … about 14 of them.
…have “constipation” of the brain, and “diarrhea” of the keyboard.
Feel free to add me to the Spinner list, Huffman!
Done!
And chic is a spinner.
Kristian is absolutely right.
Is everyone done with the troll yet?
barry, I’m thinking of a new list for those that believe the green plate can warm the blue plate. It will probably be called “2LoT Deniers”.
I’ll start the list with you, assuming you still believe in that nonsense also.
I’m still laughing at the rubber band, trampoline and diving board comment from JD. Those three items are the extent of his physics knowledge.
Yes, I laugh at you too, SGW.
You were unable to understand the hammer throw. The rubber band, trampoline, and diving board were “kiddie-level” examples to help you understand. You still could not get it.
Lots of laughs, I agree.
I mean I expected some stupid answer from JD, trying to explain the physics of a hammer throw. But his response was absolutely hilarious! He rambled on about trampolines and diving boards! OMG, classic.
I try to respond at the level of the questioner.
Sometimes, I just can’t go any lower….
skeptic…”I mean I expected some stupid answer from JD, trying to explain the physics of a hammer throw”.
I posted a video of a hammer throw where the hammer was a ball with attached chain and handle. You can clearly see, by pausing the video, that the thrower releases his grip on the ball when the assembly is at right angles to him with the ball moving straight ahead toward its flight path.
The first thing you notice is that the chain remains taut as if the ball and chain are a rigid unit. The ball is actually pulling the chain along and as it does, the chain starts to swing behind the ball, adding a torque.
If the ball was rotating on it’s own, that would be apparent as it rotated and the chain took a different path, or became slack. That does not happen, the ball, chain, and handle act as a rigid unit, with the chain rotating like a lever arm and pulling the ball in a circle.
There is a form of eye hook on the ball to which the end chain link attaches. If the ball was turning by itself in the position shown, it would turn inside the chain link, allowing the chain to lag behind. It is apparent throughout the ball flight, however, that both are pulling on each other, causing a rotation around a barycentre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WooCZNY6pE
Gordon,
Nope. Right before the release the only force acting on the ball was a tension force in the cable. And that tension force acts directly through the center of mass of the ball. There is no way a force acting thought the center of mass could cause the ball to rotate. The ball was rotating on its axis prior to release, and continued to rotate upon release. (Newton’s first law of motion)
SGW, check the vectors the instant after release.
If you know how….
And what are you “skeptic” of, anyway. You don’t sound like a thinking person to me. You sound more like someone unable to process information. You can’t figure out the forces on the hammer. You can’t understand basic definitions.
Need I go on?
Kristian is absolutely right.
Is everyone done with the t*r*o*l*l yet?
Yep, all in.
Good list. Dont forget to add NASA, all university physics or astronomy depts.
Wouldn’t that be falsely accusing, Nate?
Yep, Im on board.
Me too, honoured be listed with so many sensible people.
Yeah, but neither of you would be “honoured” to use your real names.
Because of course you are using your real name, right g.e.r.a.n?
That guy sure has a lot of fans.
Ok, I’ll stop.
“Do these people hear themselves when they talk? On October 11, 2002, ABC’s Barbara Walters offered this bizarre validation of Fidel Castro’s dictatorship: “If literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth.” Of course, if your yardstick for freedom is freedom, Cuba doesn’t do so well.”
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2018/10/13/week-media-bias-history-praising-commie-cuba-freest
[[Linked from Instapundit]]
Walters’ stupidity is interesting.
If China says they cut there CO2 emission in half- do you believe them.
You would think someone in the press business would know something about what is called a free press.
Though some idiot once said to me a free press is where the newspaper doesn’t cost any money to get the newspaper.
Perhaps Walters has similar view of things- US press is not free, as it cost couple bucks to buy a newspaper. Though one does have the small papers which will throw one on your lawn and one will get endless amount of junk mail.
A large aspect is do believe what the State says is the truth.
Though probably more important is whether Cubans can read the international language, English.
No doubt any smart cuban would read English [though probably not speak it, within earshot of the State, as every cuban is aware that the State is quite interested in whatever they might say- btw some outsiders might really like idea such a caring State].
Next:
–What’s the greatest threat to civilization? Terrorism? No, of course it’s global warming. On the October 6, 2014 Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough asked Ayman Mohyeldin, “What’s a greater threat to civilization, Christian extremism, Jewish extremism or Muslim extremism?” New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore replied, “Global warming.” —
Hmm, what is greatest threat to civilization?
One might ask which civilization- or perhaps it’s already lost.
Governments has always appeared to be the biggest threat to past civilizations.
One say what threaten the elites of some civilization or you might imagine the middle class of civilization is more important than the elites, or what threatens most of the people of a civilization.
European tend to think Europe is the world and US elites tend to think Europe as center of the world. Or US serving the interest of Europe and rest of the world as “the civilization” that could be threatened. In that case, in 2014, it might have been president Obama.
Some might imagine denying global warming is greatest threat, if they think this, they might somehow wrap their wits around idea that denying terrorism “might” be a threat. Denying things can cause trouble. Not denying but doing things which don’t address the problem, also could cause trouble.
Or one wrap it all together and say governments denying AND failing to do things needed to addressed, can be a threat to any civilization.
And people [the citizens] who fail to fire/replace these people who are failing to govern and try something different, are the key aspect related to “threat to the civilization”.
China obviously failing in this regard, as is Cuba. US seems to be doing fine.
gbaikie…”If China says they cut there CO2 emission in half- do you believe them”.
Funny you should say that. I am just reading a book on China and from what I gather most Chinese think their governments at all levels are corrupt and liars. They don’t seem to care as long as the corrupt government keeps raising the standard of living, however meagre that may be for many.
The author tried to argue that it was not Mao who reformed China but Deng, who is credited with their recent economic revolution. I claim that if Mao had not won the battle against the reigning monster fascist regime under Chiang Kai Shek, that Deng would never have had the chance to reform anything.
We have to remember that Western capitalist, imperialist countries like Britain, the US, and Germany once raped China of its natural resources while selling the Chinese opium. With regard to Cuba, the former government run by Batista was as crooked as the Chinese regime Mao overthrew.
We should also remember that Mao got thrown out of the Communist Party that ran on Russian principles at the time. He reformed human rights to an extent by giving women freedom they had never enjoyed till Mao. He did try other reforms but he was stymied by the sheer mass of ignorance and inertia he faced
Looking from afar, I don’t agree with a lot of the extreme things Mao did, or Castro, but as Mao once revealed candidly in an interview, what else could I do?
Indeed. How could you reform a country with billions of people, most of whom were ignorant peasants intermingled with thieving landlords and outright murderers? When Sun Yat Sen tried to introduce democracy to China, circa 1915, he was not only opposed by the peasants, who neither trusted it nor understood it, he was opposed by US, British, and German imperialists. The last thing they wanted was democracy interfering with their right to rip off China.
I always regarded Baba Wawa as an idiot, much as I did most journalists like Cronkite et al. They, like their UK counterpart the BBC, have always been into propaganda.
To clarify:
“As far as I can tell, only some sort of rotation (with respect to north) will cause the two points to trace different size circles.”
Looks like you ARE a black and white thinker after all.
When you ride a bike, as the centre of gravity of your foot rotates about the axis of the chainring, does your foot also rotate about the axis of the pedal?
bob…”When you ride a bike, as the centre of gravity of your foot rotates about the axis of the chainring, does your foot also rotate about the axis of the pedal?”
No. If it did, you could not power the pedal. It’s also why the pedal piece that contacts your foot is designed to rotate around the pedal axle in which it is inserted.
Yeah, lots of things are called cranks
The Moon doesn’t have a bearing that prevents it from spinning around as it orbits the earth.
bob, what is preventing the Moon from “rotating on its own axis” is a lack of torque. Provide enough torque, and it will rotate on its own axis.
Otherwise, it will remain NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
Of course it is rotating on it’s own axis, if you had a minor in physics you would understand that.
Tides
The Earth shouldn’t be rotating, since there is no torque making it, according to noted almost-physics-minor, JD.
JD should keep on speaking. The more he does, the more he steps in it.
So your foot is not rotating about the axis of the pedal as it stays horizontal while pedaling – glad you agree Gordon.
Which of course means that if your foot WERE to change its inclination to the horizontal in ANY way while pedaling, it must be rotating about the axis of the pedal.
So if like my instep kept the same angle as the crank to the big gear, it would be rotating on it’s axis.
But then some bones would be a breaking, or tendons shredding or general deconstruction of my foot.
“It’s also why the pedal piece that contacts your foot is designed to rotate around the pedal axle in which it is inserted.”
Funny how things go over some people’s heads.
Another golden opportunity missed for JD and his toadie to find truth. They do their darnedest to avoid reality.
Another desperate comment from poor, desperately obsessive Nate.
No, and that’s why the top of your foot follows the same size circle as the bottom of your foot.
Bob and Snape are still feeding the troll.
You realize you’ve let the troll direct the conversation for a couple of days now? It is fat with attention and highly pleased with its success. It has zero interest in what you think.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”You realize youve let the troll direct the conversation for a couple of days now?”
*********
There was nothing to stop you or anyone else posting and getting a similar debate going. This debate has aroused passion in people pro and con and trolls don’t create such debate. There sole purpose is to intervene in a negative manner to promote discord.
I think this is healthy and related to climate and AGW. It reveals how people think and how pseudo-science like catastrophic AGW gets its roots. If anything, supporters of AGW are trolls since their methodology is to belittle anyone who disagrees or have them outright ostracized.
“since their methodology is to belittle anyone who disagrees”
Based on that definition, I guess JDHuffman/DREMT must be supporters of AGW.
BDB, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Gordon,
“stop you or anyone else posting and getting a similar debate going.”
It is no longer debate, when people on one side stop living within the world facts, logic, and science and simply ignore, as you do, science-based rebuttals.
nate, you have never presented “facts and logic”. You can’t because you’re so WRONG!
nate…”It is no longer debate, when people on one side stop living within the world facts, logic, and science and simply ignore, as you do, science-based rebuttals”.
It may come as news to you but science is based on observation leading to a conclusion that can be tested by the scientific method. There is a lot of nonsense today passing for science and being accepted purely through consensus, like AGW, space-time garbage, time dilation, and entanglement theory.
A proposition was submitted a while back by g.e.r that the Moon does not rotate about it’s own axis. Since then we have been inundated with attempts to get around that proposition by using obfuscations related to different frames of reference and red herring arguments based on semantics about what rotation means.
It doesn’t matter what it means, it’s the axis about which a body rotates that is important. The Moon can be claimed to rotate about the Earth, via curvilinear motion, but it does not rotate about its own axis.
I have stuck to basic physics as I learned it while studying engineering. I have laid out all of my arguments based on that science.
Some have argued that the Moon rotates about its axis exactly once during an Earth orbit. That is highly unlikely and not supported by kinematics and laws related to orbital physics, especially as related to tidal locking.
“It may come as news to you but science is based on observation leading to a conclusion that can be tested by the scientific method. ”
Well, Gordon, then you ought to be eager to try, or at least discuss, the simple experiment that I described to you several times, that tested your ideas about the Moon having angular momentum.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323588
But so far, you’ve ignored it.
barry, this exercise is a perfect way to show how closed-minded people can get.
Even if a person has NEVER had any physics, even if the person can’t understand the basic definitions, a thinking person should realize that a racehorse is NOT “rotating on its own axis” on an oval racetrack.
Especially since JD has NEVER had any physics, and JD can’t understand the basic definitions, a thinking person should realize that a racehorse has “rotated on its own axis” twice since the horse does not run ass first down the backstretch on an oval racetrack. The thinking person simply laughs at JD’s entertainment, more please.
^^ I promise I didn’t write that one ^^
ball4…”a thinking person should realize that a racehorse has rotated on its own axis twice since the horse does not run ass first down the backstretch on an oval racetrack”.
Anyone who has studied physics knows that rotation about an axis requires angular velocity about that axis. The Moon cannot be rotating with an angular velocity about it’s own axis and have one face locked to the Earth’s surface.
Of course, someone like you who claims that heat does not exist, that it is a measure…confusing heat with temperature…lives in a fantasy world where anything seems possible.
“The Moon cannot be rotating with an angular velocity about it’s own axis and have one face locked to the Earth’s surface.”
To keep one face tidally locked toward Earth Gordon, the moon must rotate with an angular velocity about its own axis just like the other observed moons. Just like a race car and horse in the turns. Like a toy locomotive in the turns. The moon and the horse rotate with an angular velocity in the turns to keep facing forward, neither ever run ass backward on their respective courses.
And Clausius defined heat out of existence in an object as proven by testing at the time, not me. I follow Clausius; Gordon should too.
^^ or that one ^^
but I was having so much fun
They so liked riding down the backstretch ass first
bobd…”just draw 2 circles on a piece of paper
Color half the moon black to represent the far side of the moon
Now try and a line from the earth to the far side of the moon that does not go through the near side”.
*********
re two coins.
In Canada, we have a ten cent piece we call a dime. We have a dollar coin called a loonie and a two dollar coin called a Toonie.
I am using a dime with a Toonie, which is a little over an inch in diameter while the dime is about 5/8″ diameter.
I set the dime at 3 o’clock on the Toonie and drew a mark with an indelible pen through both at 3 o’clock on the Toonie. If you roll the dime around the Toonie, so that the mark on the dime is always in contact with the surface of the larger coin, it appears to rotate about its axis, but we have to look closer at the internal dynamics.
If we could suddenly cut gravity that holds the Moon in place, it would fly off in a straight line tangential to its orbital path. We can emulate that by taping a 6″ thread snugly to the dime and tying a loop on the other end of the thread. Insert a nail or pin into a piece of plywood and loop the thread end over it. Now we can put a finger on the dime, stretch the thread slightly, and cause the dime to orbit the nail by keeping the thread taut and running it in a circle around the nail.
Under those conditions, the same face of the dime always faces inward toward the nail. We cannot run the dime in a straight line tangential to the thread because the thread will apply tension to it, causing it to follow a circular path. If we suddenly cut the thread, we could move the dime in a straight line tangentially.
Note that the dime cannot rotate about its own axis since the thread wont allow angular motion without breaking the thread. We could slacken off the thread a but and it would try to wind around the dime, but we don’t want that. Yet you can run the dime around the nail, with the same face pointing inward, in a circular orbit without its circumference turning in a circle about its own axis.
There is a difference with the internal dynamics between this system and one that would allow the dime to rotate about its own axis. In this system, a line drawn perpendicular to the thread, through the dime’s axis, would always move parallel to the tangent line of a circle drawn around the nail. That would be true at every point on the circle.
Every point on a line drawn on the diameter where the thread attaches would inscribe circles around the nail but not around the dime’s own axis.
The dime’s axis is part of a line that is fixed by the thread so it cannot rotate about that axis. This is the same principle as with a tidally-locked Moon. There is no physical reason to suspect the Moon is rotating exactly once per Earth orbit when the previous analogy has offered a perfectly good explanation without the dime, or the Moon, having to rotate.
I think the notion of the Moon rotating exactly once per Earth orbit is a bogus assumption with no reasonable physical explanation.
“Note that the dime cannot rotate about its own axis since the thread wont allow angular motion without breaking the thread.”
No Gordon. Once again you are not looking at the correct reference frame. The string rotates along with the dime, so of course it cannot rotate on its own axis wrt the string. But the dime is rotating on it’s own axis wrt the non inertial reference frame, the fixed table.
With your string/dime experiment, put your finger on top of the dime with very light pressure and make the dime perform an orbit like you described, but keep your finger pointing in the same direction wrt the table. The dime rotates about your finger. If you could put a north arrow through the center of the dime, you would see the dime rotating on its axis about the north arrow.
Here is another experiment that is easy to do with a lint roller. Get this type of lint roller:
https://tinyurl.com/y6wg4rkz
Tape a piece of string 12″ long to the white sticky part of the lint roller. Make a loop in the other end of the string. Place the loop around a nail (or even around your own finger), grasp the handle of the lint roller and make it perform an orbit (similar to your dime experiment). What you will observe is the white part of the lint roller rotating wrt the black handle you are holding, even though it is connected with a string to the center of orbit.
(I am not responding to any more comments by JD, since his pseudo physics is based on rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards, and he failed to back up his declaration wrt the hammer throw. Plus he’s a dim-witted troll)
skeptic…”No Gordon. Once again you are not looking at the correct reference frame. The string rotates along with the dime, so of course it cannot rotate on its own axis wrt the string. But the dime is rotating on its own axis wrt the non inertial reference frame, the fixed table”.
More obfuscation. The dime cannot rotate about it’s own axis because it is restrained by the thread. I don’t care about your obfuscated reference frames, the dime is not turning about its own axis with an angular velocity.
You remind me of the shopkeeper in the Monty Python sketch. When John Cleese returns a dead parrot, which was apparently dead when he bought it, and nailed to the perch, the shopkeeper used every kind of obfuscation trying to convince Cleese that the parrot was alive.
Among his patter:
-it’s sleeping
-it’s pining for the fiords
“The dime cannot rotate about its own axis because it is restrained by the thread.”
No. Go ask your local physics professor. He will straighten out your confusion. The string only prevents the dime from rotating wrt to the rotating reference frame the dime and string are located on, Einstein. Go present your case in an online physics forum. You will be laughed out of the room.
“I dont care about your obfuscated reference frames”
The issue is reference frames, which obviously confuse you.
“the dime is not turning about its own axis with an angular velocity.”
More grand unsupported statements. When you “turn” something like a dime or tennis ball, you are rotating it. And when you rotate something like a dime or tennis ball, it rotates on its own axis. For every one orbit, the dime has rotated 360 degrees on its own axis. An rigid object making a circular orbit will either be 1. Translating, or 2. It’s center of mass will be translating along the orbital path, while the object rotates about its center of mass. The dime is not translating, so by default and per kinematic definitions, it will be case 2.
Tie a string to several objects like a real hammer and rotate it around you, then let go of the string. You will observe the object rotating as soon as you release the string. No, the string cannot transmit a torque to make the object spin. The object was rotating on its own axis before you let go of the string.
skeptic….”Go ask your local physics professor. He will straighten out your confusion. The string only prevents the dime from rotating wrt to the rotating reference frame the dime and string are located on….”
As astronomer Wal Thornhill pointed out, mystery sciences like string theory work in every universe but our own. He wondered why people insisted on trying to fit a 4th dimension of time into a 3-D world, creating an imaginary space-time.
If you want to live in a fantasy world of multiple-dimensions in your mind, that’s your option. The Moon is a real rigid body composed of atoms that orbit the Earth, all moving parallel to the Earth’s tangential surface.
It’s called curvilinear translation.
You are in good company, however, Even Einstein managed to lose himself in that pseudo-world via thought experiment. It would not have been so bad had he not championed the real, physical world, with Schrodinger, in opposition to the fantasy world of extreme quantum theory created by Bohr. Why he forsook that real, physical world for a world of fantasy dimensions is not clear.
I took an awareness seminar a while back and got into a debate with the leader over reality. I was arguing along your line that it MIGHT be possible for a person to walk through a wall if he could fit his atoms between the atoms of a well. He replied, “never mind that bs, a wall is real and if you can walk through one, do it now.
There is a danger in getting too far into scientific theory. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge realities at the macro level like brick walls. That was a lesson for me, which took me out of my fantasy world and into a better relationship with reality.
“The Moon is a real rigid body composed of atoms that orbit the Earth, all moving parallel to the Earth’s tangential surface.
It’s called curvilinear translation.”
Wrong. Once again, Gordon, like JD, dreams up his own make-believe definition of translation. The real definition:
“Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
It does not matter if the motion is curvilinear translation, or rectilinear translation. The above has to apply. A line drawn though the moon does not keep pointed in the same direction throughout its orbit. Therefore not translating.
“The dimes axis is part of a line that is fixed by the thread so it cannot rotate about that axis.”
Incorrect. Your dime is orbiting but you are comparing its motion with respect to the rotating reference frame! We know the dime cannot rotate on its own axis wrt the thread which is rotating along with the dime. You need to compare the dime’s motion with respect to the non-rotating reference frame, which is the table.
skeptic…”Incorrect. Your dime is orbiting but you are comparing its motion with respect to the rotating reference frame!”
Beggar off with your obfuscations. Get out of your mind and try observing the real universe.
Gordon is confused as usual. Lay off the beer, eh?
The physics proving that the Moon and the hammer have angular momentum about its center of mass is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324740
If anyone wants further explanation, Im happy to discuss.
Nate, you keep making the same mistake. You’re trying to claim the Moon is “rotating on its own axis”. You’re going in circles without going anywhere.
You’re spinning on your own axis!
And trying out my new JD-noise cancelling headphones. So far they work!
Nate,
Good comment. Parallel axis theorem.
But JD only understands physics in terms of rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards. So he won’t get it.
And any kind of figure you use will have to be drawn with crayons as well.
Thanks, SGW. You’re right, too bad.
gbakie upthread linked to a WUWT post on a ‘report’ that supposedly found the Met Office global temp data riddled with errors.
A few days later and the comments have been illuminating.
The data that was scorned was actually raw data – the data received directly from Met offices around the world, with all the mistakes and errors before CRU quality control weed them out.
So a ‘skeptic’ was shocked – shocked I tell you! – about the raw data, and calling it unfit for purpose.
This is a welcome realization, not that the skeptic community will understand that for very long. The fish-like memories will soon be calling for the raw data and nothing else to be used in global temp records.
A certain Chilean weather station’s data was noted in the report for obviously wrong data errors. But that data is not used in the Met Office global temp product.
And so on…
Another ‘BOMBSHELL’ bites the dust. Not that the fish will remember.
barry, just one more reason I seldom go to WUWT. The site is heavily censored. They are their own cult, keeping the AGW hoax alive, as they pretend to be against it.
No one of the ‘real’ WUWT commenters believes in what you call the ‘AGW hoax’, Huffman.
Some of them – including Watts himself and persons like Willis Eschenbach – trust in the GHE model.
This is a fundamentally different attitude – even if not in your personal opinion.
They’re smart to not believe in a hoax.
How many hoaxes do you believe in?
Is it worth it to answer such a low-key question?
Of course it’s worth it!
You don’t want to live in denial, do you?
Yes barry, that’s WUWT. Watts needs daily food for his ‘skeptic’ community.
I remember a guest post written by an unknown named Mark Fyfe, claiming comme toujours about a ‘no global warming’ based on an incredibly superficial analysis of highest maxima and minima, and comme toujours restricted to… CONUS.
barry…”The data that was scorned was actually raw data…”
You mean real, actual data before Had-crut had the chance to fudge it.
Yes, Gordon.
This skeptic opined that this data was just terrible and should not be used. I quote:
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46C. These are supposedly average temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0C for a whole month, and twice!
This is the raw data that skeptics have insisted be used in the global temp records.
I lack time to follow this moon spin denial polemic.
{ I’m currently reading a great, great 4 page long critique of Albert Einstein’s E=mc2 derivation, written by H. Yves in 1952. It contains stuff letting appear the Robertson antiscience cowboy and his dumb, brainless comments about Einstein more ridiculous than ever. Mehr dazu später. }
I don’t know anything about the exact scientific qualification of many commenters here.
How can those people, of whom no one has ever given a degree in astronomy, put forward their intuitive, narcissistic notions above the knowledge of individuals who have earned a doctorate in this scientific field?
That is and will keep for longer time one of the secrets of denialism.
I personally prefer to trust in people having real experience in such domains.
Recently I read on a german web site some documents written years ago by the Austrian scientist Florian Freistetter who obtained at Vienna University (founded in 1365) a PhD in astronomy, and worked since then ih this field at Jena University’s Observatory, and then at Heidelberg’s Rechen Institute for Astronomy.
Thus yes: I prefer to trust in Freistetter’s meaning, best represented by a few simple pictures.
1. How does a non-rotating Moon look like during a revolution around Earth?
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-eef8729ce7f663c6a7f0f44e9e009d8c-mondrotiernicht.jpg
2a. How does a rotating Moon look like during a revolution around Earth?
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-28b79821662f72eee383735aeb380ec2-monddrehtsich.jpg
2b. The phases of a rotating moon:
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-a4dea619016a09d6899d260641440b85-monddrehtsich2.jpg
3. But even more interesting for me was that, in the same head post, I could see the following two charts:
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/files/2013/05/earth-moon.jpg
The underlying computations were made by Dr Ludmila Carone working at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg:
http://www.mpia.de/homes/carone/
What she shows is that the current situation is by no means a fixed status; we happen to be part of a scenario that began over 4 billion years ago, and theoretically would end in over 50 billion years, with both the Earth and the Moon becoming immobile. But the Sum will end that beautiful story in a far earlier future (sorry for my somewhat poor ‘Germish’).
Thus you all will understand my reaction when people like Huffman or the Roberson cowboy mean both European astronomes have it plain wrong, ha ha.
Their way of thinking is the same as that of all people I call the ‘pseudoskeptics’: it is to say “I doubt about Xyz’s work: it’s pseudoscience, prove me wrong” instead of themselves proving him or her wrong.
By the way, I’m a bit sad of this stupid sockpuppetry blah blah. Bindidon sent his name to Roy Spencer long time ago, and I could do the same: anybody at his site would see within the email software that behind the alias I use to communicate my comments, there is, deep in the full header, a real email address showing… my real name.
LP, does all that mean you want on the “Spinners” list?
Yes. What else could that mean?
You didn’t directly state it, so I wanted to make sure.
BTW, have you ever been to a horse race?
binny…”It contains stuff letting appear the Robertson antiscience cowboy and his dumb, brainless comments about Einstein more ridiculous than ever”.
Do you have an explanation for how time can dilate when the second is defined as a fraction of the period of a body rotating at a fixed velocity?
Einstein did not seem to understand that the second is absolute, as Newton claimed.
I grew up idolizing Einstein. More recently, I am beginning to see that he is not as teflon-coated as he seemed to be. Much of the work he claimed on relativity was done earlier by others and his famous E = mc^2 was developed years before he presented it.
The most damning evidence for me came from a physicist who developed the atomic clock, Louis Essen, and who was an expert on time. He claimed that Einstein did not understand the basics of measurement and that he specialized in thought-experiments.
It is clear that Einstein did not understand the basis of time. In his GRT paper he referred to time as the hands on a clock, then proceeded to make alarming claims based on that misunderstanding.
Climate is in the crossroads. Not much to say right now but I am here.
I lack time to follow this moon spin denial polemic.
I don’t know anything about the exact scientific qualification of many commenters here.
How can such people, of whom no one has ever shown to have a degree in astronomy, put forward their intuitive, narcissistic notions above the knowledge of individuals who have earned a doctorate in this scientific field?
That is and will keep for longer time one of the secrets of denialism.
I personally prefer to trust in people having real experience in such domains.
Recently I read on a german web site some documents written years ago by the Austrian scientist Florian Freistetter who obtained at Vienna University (founded in 1365) a PhD in astronomy, and worked since then ih this field at Jena University’s Observatory, and then at Heidelberg’s Rechen Institute for Astronomy.
Thus yes: I prefer to trust in Freistetter’s meaning, best represented by a few simple pictures.
1. How does a non-rotating Moon look like during a revolution around Earth?
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-eef8729ce7f663c6a7f0f44e9e009d8c-mondrotiernicht.jpg
2a. How does a rotating Moon look like during a revolution around Earth?
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-28b79821662f72eee383735aeb380ec2-monddrehtsich.jpg
2b. The phases of a rotating moon:
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/wp-content/blogs.dir/28/files/2012/07/i-a4dea619016a09d6899d260641440b85-monddrehtsich2.jpg
3. But even more interesting for me was that, in the same head post, I could see the following two charts:
http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/files/2013/05/earth-moon.jpg
The underlying computations were made by Dr Ludmila Carone working at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg:
http://www.mpia.de/homes/carone/
What she shows is that the current situation is by no means a fixed status; we happen to be part of a scenario that began over 4 billion years ago, and theoretically would end in over 50 billion years, with both the Earth and the Moon becoming immobile. But the Sum will end that beautiful story in a far earlier future (sorry for my somewhat poor ‘Germish’).
Thus you all will understand my reaction when people like Huffman or the Roberson cowboy mean both European astronomes have it plain wrong, ha ha.
Their way of thinking is the same as that of all people I call the ‘pseudoskeptics’: it is to say “I doubt about Xyz’s work: it’s pseudoscience, prove me wrong” instead of themselves proving him or her wrong.
By the way, I’m a bit sad of this stupid sockpuppetry blah blah. Bindidon sent his name to Roy Spencer long time ago, and I could do the same: anybody at his site would see within the email software that behind the alias I use to communicate my comments, there is, deep in the full header, a real email address showing… my real name.
binny…”How can such people, of whom no one has ever shown to have a degree in astronomy, put forward their intuitive, narcissistic notions above the knowledge of individuals who have earned a doctorate in this scientific field?”
I might ask in response why you are so hung up on appealing to authority. It’s one things to disrespect someone with a degree and quite another to accept propaganda from degreed scientists simply because he/she has a degree.
Astronomers, no matter how clever, lack the in-depth understanding of kinematics acquired by engineers. After an in-depth grilling in kinematics during my engineering studies, I have no problem challenging an astronomer with a degree on physics that makes no sense.
The notion offered that the Moon turns exactly once per Earth orbit makes no practical sense. What are the odds that a celestial body would have a rotational period exactly matching it’s orbital period?
Many astronomers blindly support the Big Bang theory, which is sheer nonsense based on the evidence available. Some modern astronomers are now teaching the nonsense that gravity is not a force but part of a space-time continuum.
Why should I sit by and accept abject nonsense like that, which is nothing more than an abstract thought-experiment?
It’s sad to say but many students go into astronomy because it’s easy credits. Same with geology and fields like anthropology. I am not claiming there are no brilliant people in those fields, I am simply claiming the fields attract people looking for a degree the easy way.
I took first year astronomy and yawned my way through the course. The math was dead simple, if not non-existent. Easy credits. I learned that most studies done in astronomy are done via the study of gas spectra gathered by radio-telescopes. Visual telescopes cannot supply the detailed information required to study stellar atmospheres.
We are inundated with sheer bs about exo-planets similar to Earth based on tiny perturbations in gas spectra that occur with regularity. Astronomers tend to amplify the perturbations out of proportion making claims that are nothing more than educated guesses.
There are areas in science far to complex for a layman to challenge, or even someone like me with a limited background. However, no one, layman or otherwise, should ever feel intimidated about asking questions or seeking proofs through extra-curricular studies.
If you can learn science in a classroom, you can learn it equally well at home, maybe even better.
“Astronomers, no matter how clever, lack the in-depth understanding of kinematics acquired by engineers.”
What a load of horse manure! Please look at the following:
https://web.astro.princeton.edu/academic/undergraduate-program/major-requirements
There are astronomy BA degrees which are more of a liberal arts education, but those serious about astronomy go for the astrophysics degree.
“After an in-depth grilling in kinematics during my engineering studies, I have no problem challenging an astronomer with a degree on physics that makes no sense.”
Huh? The disjointed sentence you wrote makes no sense. You don’t even know what a “translation” is. You are confused by reference frames. The list is endless.
“I took first year astronomy and yawned my way through the course.”
No. You SLEPT your way through all your alleged engineering courses.
Once more, a resounding “whoosh” can be distinctly heard, as the point flies way over the heads below…
How is Gordon able to even move, with that big head?
All the big-ass moons in the solar system are tidally locked and rotate synchronously with their orbital period.
All the big ones around Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus and Neptune.
Yes. Gordon even asks: “What are the odds that a celestial body would have a rotational period exactly matching its orbital period?”
Very high odds as a moon/satellite, as observed; and probably as yet to be observed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#List_of_known_tidally_locked_bodies
…whoosh!
“We are inundated with sheer bs about exo-planets similar to Earth based on tiny perturbations in gas spectra that occur with regularity. ”
More anti-science from Gordon. A shocker.
binny…”1. How does a non-rotating Moon look like during a revolution around Earth?”
Freistter’s depiction of a non-rotating Moon is wrong. He clearly does not understand the mechanics of an orbit.
Begin with the Moon at 3 o’clock with the dark half on the right. That body wants to move in a straight line perpendicular to a radial line drawn through its centre from the centre of the Earth.
You have a velocity vector in a tangential direction and an acceleration vector along the radial line pointing to the Earth. The resultant path for the Moon is it’s orbit. Rather than travel along a tangential line it is tugged into another tangential line pointing at a slight angle to the tangential line. The Moon now wants to travel along that straight line.
The dark side does not remain vertical, it turns slightly, trying to travel on the new tangential path. The radial acceleration vector can be considered a rope attaching the centres of the two bodies with a tension inward toward the Earth. With the rope attached, the Moon will keep its dark side always pointed outward.
You can think of an orbit as a series of tangential lines along which an orbiting body tries to move. The orbiting body has only momentum, which is a straight line momentum. It is the force applied by Earth’s gravity that directs the linear momentum into a new tangential direction.
“Freistters depiction of a non-rotating Moon is wrong. He clearly does not understand the mechanics of an orbit.”
No Gordon. You slept through your kinematics course. The depiction is correct. A non-rotating moon is translating. And you don’t have the correct kinematic definition of a translation:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
[http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf]
In Freistter’s depiction, we will draw a straight line through the border between the shaded and non-shaded region of the moon, since there is a line already there. That line keeps in the same direction during the motion of the orbit, meeting the kinematic definition of a translating body.
So everything you wrote above is a load of horse manure.
SGW, what do you believe you are skeptic about. You slurp down pseudoscience like it was health food.
The MIT example problem clearly indicated the object on the train would NOT be “rotating on its own axis”. You went into denial, claiming the problem was about “Statics”. Sorry clown, “statics” is about stationary. Dynamics is about motion. You clearly don’t know the difference.
And you STILL can’t understand the basic definition of translational motion. Once again, a hint. Figure A (trains, rece horses, and the Moon) is TRANSLATIONAL. Figure B, is orbiting AND “rotating on its own axis” (NOT the Moon).
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
Someone tell the dumbass JD that the MIT problem was a basic statics problem. Even though the guy was on a rotating train, he was in static equilibrium with the rail car, because he was fixed and not moving on the railcar. You analyze the static loads and moments to solve for the unknown forces.
The only equation of motion used was to solve for the centripetal forces on the guys feet. But that force was then plugged into the freebody diagram to analyze all the static forces on the guy. But the whole problem was a simple statics problem. JD does not know crap about physics, just rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards.
Such a ds loser.
Clowns are so funny.
SGW admits: “Even though the guy was on a rotating train…”
binny….”What she shows is that the current situation is by no means a fixed status; we happen to be part of a scenario that began over 4 billion years ago, and theoretically would end in over 50 billion years….”
I dismiss anything claimed 4 billion years ago as sheer speculation. Not worth the effort to discuss it.
No one knows the origin of the Moon or the Earth. Some scientists have the nerve to claim the Moon was formed from the Earth, none of them explaining how a body the size of the Moon could escape Earth’s gravitational field let along how it acquired the exact momentum to get it into orbit.
You simply cannot rely on conjecture from scientists, especially astronomers.
Galberton Reinsteinson trying one more time to lie about NOAA:
“Absolutely pathetic. NOAA admitted on it’s site that it currently uses less than 1500 stations globally to create its time series.”
That is not pathetic: that is simply hatred-based misinformation, mixed with ignorance and mental sickness.
*
1. I am talking with JDHuffman about the processing of the GHCN daily dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw
which comprises more than 100000 stations worldwide, about 36000 of which deal with temperature measurements (TMIN, TMAX, TAVG):
https://tinyurl.com/yb4yjv72
2. What he is talking about was NOAA’s agreement on the fact that in the GHCN V2 era, 4500 stations indeed were given up due to lack of automated communication.
Here is a hint on the first appearance (March 23, 2010) of the document he never gets tired to present as if it was still brand-new:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
What he permanently hides is this:
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
He deliberately tries to dissimulate that GHCN V3 features since years 7280 stations for the “unadjusted” and “adjusted” TAVG time series:
https://tinyurl.com/y7v27t5e
Anybody able to unzip such files immediately sees the station file with all the actual stations associated to the corresponding data file. (Caution: huge file sizes).
*
That is Galberton Reinsteinson’s world: to ignore, dissimulate, divert, manipulate, lie, discredit, denigrate.
And such people try to tell us about Einstein, GPS, time, etc! Incredible.
Why does he publish his nonsense and his lies here, and not at WUWT, Tallbloke, Climate Etc?
Simply because this site, as opposed to the other ones, doesn’t provide for any kind of moderation.
Of all his nonsense this is the worst. NOAA did the exact opposite of what he criticizes them for. They spend years getting more station data and he says they deliberately deleted them. There are 7280 stations in the monthly data base. Nothing has been deleted.
Having been shown the truth on multiple occasions I’ve come to the opinion he’s senile. There’s no other way to justify such imperviousness to the straight facts.
barry…”Of all his nonsense this is the worst. NOAA did the exact opposite of what he criticizes them for. They spend years getting more station data and he says they deliberately deleted them”.
There are none more blind than those who will not see.
Your endorsement of NOAA, despite their own admission of using less than 1500 stations globally, is an indication of your inability to deal with reality.
Bindidon, you’ve got a lot of names misrepresented there.
But, if all you’re interested in is slurs, it doesn’t matter, huh?
Slurs? Whose slurs are you talking about, JDHuffman?
Sure you don’t mean Reinsteinson’s insults against me and Rose, huh?
Your good friend Robertson will experience our counterinsults as long as he insults us!
Thanks for the links to data and graphical representations, Bin. If only everyone took the trouble to corroborate their comments.
binny…”Absolutely pathetic. NOAA admitted on its site that it currently uses less than 1500 stations globally to create its time series.
That is not pathetic: that is simply hatred-based misinformation, mixed with ignorance and mental sickness”.
^^^^^^^^^^^
This is why I call you an idiot.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
In their own words, straight from their site of the day, NOAA claimed:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
You want to talk about mental illness. Explain why a plain statement of fact by NOAA is interpreted by you as NOAA using tens of thousands more stations than they claim to be using.
While you’re at it, you might try explaining why you left in a snit a while back, saying adieu, that you’d had it with the blog, then showed up a few days later as La Pagolina, a woman.
I think you have serious mental issues as do many of your alarmist brethern.
Galberton Reinsteinson
You can call me and Rose idots as long as you want.
You insult me? I insult you back: you are the most ignorant and arrogant liar writing here.
You perfectly know that the NOAA page you refer to was recorded by Wayback in 2010, and not recently as you pretend. This information referred to GHCN V2, which is deprecated since years and has been replaced by revision V3.
The first Wayback appearance is this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
and everybody is aware that all succeeding appearances were based on exactly the same page with the same contents, the last one having appeared in 2017.
Nobody is dumb enough here to believe in your dirty tricks.
Tell us all lies you want: fact is that
– GHCN V3 features 7280 stations
– GHCN daily features over 35000 of them.
Feel free to continue to write your lies, you won’t change anything.
How is it possible to be such a dumb liar like you?
binny…”Why does he publish his nonsense and his lies here, and not at WUWT, Tallbloke, Climate Etc?
Simply because this site, as opposed to the other ones, doesnt provide for any kind of moderation”.
************
I post here because I admire the work done by Roy and his integrity demonstrated in standing up to the liars in the alarmist faction.
Any site that blocks opposing views that are based on a different interpretation of science, are propagandists. Roy has an open mind, allowing a wide range of commentary as long as the posters don’t try to bait him or insult him.
If I was posting on WUWT, TallBloke, Climate Etc., I would respect anyone who respected my right to have a different view of science. Hopefully I would not be engaged by idiots like you who presents alarmist propaganda based on an amateur assessment of data.
I engage with Tim, who tends to hold a diametrically opposing view. I don’t agree with him on many points he makes but I respect his right to make them.
The problem with you is that you are rude. You are intolerant of scientific explanations and you present amateur graphs as if they compare to the professionals at UAH.
“Hopefully I would not be engaged by idiots like you who presents alarmist propaganda based on an amateur assessment of data.”
And Galberton Reinsteinson continues to insult me…
If you would respect Roy Spencer, you would not insult anybody here. Recall: Rose and I we never started insulting anybody here. You started with this disgusting behavior.
And we are by no means the only people you permanently insult on this site
If you were posting your GPS / time dilation / Einstein pseudoscience at WUWT, TallBloke, Climate Etc, you would get banned within one or two days.
Be courageous, Reinsteinson! And go there, insult people like you cowardly do here behind your faked pseudoreal name.
What concerns my pretended “alarmist propaganda based on an amateur assessment of data”: DO IT YOURSELF instead of lying and insulting!
Gordon,
How about quoting the next bit in that link?
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
And how about recognizing once and for all that there are over 6000 weather stations in the NOAA database?
Since the early 1990s the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) dataset has been an internationally recognized source of data for the study of observed variability and change in land surface air temperature. It provides monthly mean temperature data for 7280 stations from 226 countries and territories…
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly-ghcn-m-version-3
That’s from 2018. There have been 7280 stations in the GHCN monthly database for 20 years.
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
None of them were deleted.
These are from source, Gordon. Educate yourself, for crying out loud.
Latest update to the “Spinners” list.
Again, these are people that believe a horse is also “rotating on its own axis”, as it laps an oval track. IOW, making two different motions at the same time.
Norman Grinvalds
David Appell
Tim Folkerts
Ball4
SGW
barry
Kristian
Bart
Fritz
Nate
Snape
Svante
bobdroege
bobdesbond
La Pangolina
Being on the list means that they avoid facts and logic, as contained in this hint:
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
So now the count is 15 to 2 against you.
And the odds are 15/2 that you can’t understand the hint.
The funniest straw man award definitely goes to barry, with “it’s geocentrism”.
I don’t think Snape should be on the list though, because that is far too binary for him. A grey-area thinker like Snape would never be tied down to just one position. Or, perhaps, he should be on both lists. If so, that would make it 15 to 3.
Then you have gbaikie and AndyG55. So that makes it 15 to 5.
Still waiting on gordon friesen to fully commit to a position.
barry is quite the dreamer.
He can dream up a lot of pseudoscience….
LOL
BoM have raised the ENSO status from el Nino watch to el Nino alert.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
The latest NOAA forecast (ONI) has el Nino at above average chances of occurring by the end of the year. This page is always their latest update:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
MOAA may shift to a higher probability by next update, as NINO3.4 SSTs are near or above el Nino thresholds recently.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
It’s by no means certain that an el Nino will develop, but most indicators are pointing in that direction.
To be clear, this is a comment on a weather phenomenon.
barry…”BoM have raised the ENSO status from el Nino watch to el Nino alert”.
Why should we take the word of BOM, who have blatantly fudged the temperature record? Even if there is no EN, they will claim there is one.
barry…”BoM have raised the ENSO status from el Nino watch to el Nino alert”.
Why should we take the word of BOM, who have bla.tan.tly fud.ged the temperature record? Even if there is no EN, they will claim there is one.
The BOM have no stake in ENSO events.
Even if there is no EN, they will claim there is one.
Why on Earth would they want to do that? You just stab the keyboard and words come out.
Are you mad, Gordon? BoM have no stake in faking el Ninos. They actually have a higher threshold for el Nino than NOAA do.
Who cares if an el Nino develops or not? It’s like weather watching. If I tell you it rained in Sydney the last 2 weeks, are you going to construct some mad conspiracy about it?
Jesus you’re paranoid.
barry, YOU believe a horse is “rotating on its own axis” as it runs an oval racetrack. How many other funny things do you believe?
barry…”BoM have no stake in faking el Ninos”.
BoM, GISS, NOAA, Had-crut….one and the same. And now RSS have joined them.
All fudgers and climate alarmists.
Gordon,
WHY would BoM bother to fake el Ninos?
What’s the point?
I found the bicycle peddle thing interesting : the foot is revolving (orbiting) but NOT rotating.
As for Robertson’s remarks on Mao, and Chang Kai Shek (spelling) that is deep, deep, doo-doo !
The Nationalists, running from the Communists, retreated into the island of Taiwan where they created a democratic and economic powerhouse. Mao on the other hand was a dirty (literally) little murdering bastard with the highest of all authoritarian death counts weighing in at perhaps 120 million as opposed to Stalin’s 40 and Hitler’s 20 (we are just talking about domestic deaths in these stats, not enemy civilians or soldiers etc.)
And with regards to women’s rights the little bastard (Mao) used to have local virgins presented to him wherever he went in the train that he used as a base, being too paranoid to stay in one place for two days in a row. pubescent virgins. The little pervert.
Nothing but sh*t on a stick happened with the Chinese economy until that man and his stupid economics were replaced.
G. Robertson : Thanks for schooling me !
G.F. : My pleasure
gordon f…”The Nationalists, running from the Communists, retreated into the island of Taiwan where they created a democratic and economic powerhouse. Mao on the other hand was a dirty (literally) little murdering bastard….”
So much for your understanding of the conflict. As a young man, as a university student with a deep interest in the Arts, Mao protested against foreign interference in China. He married a fellow student then later watched from afar as the Kuomintang brutally executed her by strangulation.
The head of the Kuomintang at one time, Chiang Kai Shek, and his followers, were the ones Mao drove off to Taiwan. The idea that such a load of murdering thugs could form a democracy, makes me gag.
Those driven off to Taiwan were brutal oppressors. If any of them did form a democracy, it was the followers of Sun Yet San, who did try introducing democracy to China, but who was usurped by Chiang Kai Shek.
Those murderers continued their campaign of terror on Taiwan till around 1990. It was the UN who intervened and stop recognizing their claim to be China. The US switched allegiance as well, recognizing Mainland China as China. Chiang died in 1975, and it was subsequent rulers who introduced reform.
Mao was right to kick Chiang’s skinny butt out of China.
He thinks the Cultural Revolution and the tens of millions of deaths it caused was fake news. Just as he thinks 20th science was fake news.
Gordon is quite a mensch.
Nate is claiming the parallel axis theorem settles the moon rotation issue (he is doing his usual thing of hiding way upthread with it, rather than bring it to everybodys attention). So, if anyone wants an extremely long and fruitless discussion with somebody incapable of learning, they can talk to Nate about it. Here is as good a place as any.
There’s nothing wrong with the parallel axis theorem. It just has no relevance to the Moon issue.
Put it down as one more failed attempt by Nate, to pervert reality.
DREMT seeks fruit. Fruit: people accepting my BS.
I am truly unable to learn your TEAM’s fake fizuks, so no fruit for you DREMT.
Tell JD that I heard something about one of his best friends used the Parallel-Axis-Theorem once. The rest didnt get thru my JD-noise cancelling headphones.
Nate says, “Fruit: people accepting my BS.”
So Nate is saying that fruit = people accepting his BS.
Then he says, “no fruit for you”.
OK.
Yeah, poor Nate. He often gets tangled up in his own web.
Too much spinning, I guess.
Dremt,
Seriously, how old are you? Still using ‘I know you are but what am I?’ Sad.
No, just interpreting your words, as written.
DREMT is bad at context clues. Spins words to his own weird fantasies.
Nate is especially desperate today.
And DREMT. What happened to your old job? I see you’ve become a full time troll now.
Nate, please stop trolling.
It also shows 0C warming over the past 20 years. That’s 0F! That’s ashame, I was hoping we’d reach the idyllic levels of the Middle Ages or even the Roman Republic. If this keeps up, Climate Hysteria welfare payments will stop going to scientists fanning these fake flames.
Did you pull that figure out of your arse?
Actually, Jim was going easy on you barry. If you compare September 2018 to September 1998, there is less that 0C warming, i.e., “cooling”.
But, you may not be able to understand his point….
If I went onto the surface of the moon, dark side, lay flat on my back looking up, I would get a lovely view of the stars.
If I were to lay there for approximately one month, what pattern of stars would I see?
I think that the image on day one would look pretty much the same as the image on day 27..28.
How should I interpret what I see?
The stars are rotating around me or
I am on a body that it rotating?
Steve, it is very confusing to some people.
The Moon is “orbiting” around the Earth. So that motion translates to the stars appearing to move, as viewed from the Moon.
But, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. If it were, we would be able to see all sides from Earth. We only see one side, basically.
The simplest model of Moon’s motion is a racehorse running an oval track. The horse “orbits” the center of the track, but is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. An observer inside the track would only see one side of the horse. An observer outside the track would see all sides of the horse. Same with the Moon.
“But, the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. If it were, we would be able to see all sides from Earth.”
You have said this several times, as if it were some fundamental law of physics — “you see one side of an object if and only if it is not rotating on its own axis.” Like this is akin to “If a net force is applied to an object, it will accelerate”. Why do you think “not rotating” = “only see one side from earth”?
Certainly, if the moon were stationary, then a rotation on its axis would cause us to see all sides from earth. But the moon is moving.
But if the moon were moving in a straight line and not rotating on its own axis, then we WOULD see all sides from earth. (One side as it approaches and the oppose side as it retreats.
You even agreed that a north-facing, non-rotating merry-go-round horse can bee seen from all sides.
PS If you want to ‘engage’, you will have to do more than say ‘ i disagree’ or ‘only I understand physics, so just accept my statements’. You have not engaged with my merry-go-round example (you actually agreed with me until you realized your mis-step). You didn’t engage with calculus (calling is a trick).
“If (JD) want to ‘engage’, (JD) will have to do more than say..”
I agree Tim. It should be way obvious by now JD does not want to engage.
JD prefers to continue playing the fool believing “the Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”” and “The horse orbits the center of the track, but is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.”
That can only happen if the horse runs down the backstretch ass first and similarly the moon doesn’t always face forward in its motion. JD is stuck in playing the fool mode and always will be. There is no analogy you or anyone else can make up to which JD will pay attention.
Long ago, before blogs even, Miguel de Cervantes also noticed this sort of behavior in people at the time and became an important, celebrated figure in Spanish literature recording JDs type of behavior for posterity.
You are being trolled. You are foolish to feed it.
Cervantes writing is fun to read as evidenced by its longevity barry. His conflict between fake and real is an age-old theme re-invigorated here by twice banned JD returning to provide the foolish entertainment. Well, ok, and Gordon too, along with a few others.
barry realizes that clowns cannot compete with reality. He knows they only reveal the vapidness of the AGW hoax.
He’s probably the only smart clown here….
Even JD admits: “the Moon, “turns” in orbit.”
Ball4 says, “admits”, so Ball4 “admits” that he understands what JD was saying is not what Ball4 is implying, so in Ball4’s own words Ball4 “admits” he is wrong, the crowds cheer him on as Miguel de Cervantes rotates on his axis, in his grave.
“But if the moon were moving in a straight line and not rotating on its own axis, then we WOULD see all sides from earth. (One side as it approaches and the oppose side as it retreats.”
Except the moon doesn’t approach and retreat, and neither does the sun or stars.
One could say this related to the illusion of the Moon appearing to larger at the horizon. It looks like it is far away and compared to the tiny things which far away, the moon appears big- and you see it as big, and when not bigger than when moon is near zenith.
Of course the mind is not really “thinking” or it could then imagine moon is closer when near zenith [but it actually isn’t closer or at least not significantly closer that one could actually see that it’s closer].
Or when the moon crosses the sky, the earth rotation speed is catching up to it and passing it. And because it’s so far away, the angle difference and curvature of Earth is insignificant that not much closer. Or hundred of miles is not much closer when it’s hundred of thousand of miles away.
But a part of side can be seen approaching and departing and is one of the aspect of libration:
“Diurnal libration is a small daily oscillation due to Earth’s rotation, which carries an observer first to one side and then to the other side of the straight line joining Earth’s and the Moon’s centers, allowing the observer to look first around one side of the Moon and then around the other – since the observer is on Earth’s surface, not at its center.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
gbaikie…”Or when the moon crosses the sky, the earth rotation speed is catching up to it and passing it”.
Today, on the southwest corner of Canada, at Vancouver, the Moon appeared in the Eastern sky during daylight hours, around 3 PM. Later that day, around 10 pm, it appeared low in the Western sky with the set Sun illuminating it’s bottom half.
That’s an example of what you are saying. The Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days or so, yet it appears to cross the sky in 8 hours, or so.
The Earth rotates 28 times at least while the Moon orbits once, yet we see the same face over the entire orbital period. A rotating Moon would have to show all sides to a planet rotating 30 times during its Earth orbit, because that Moon would have to rotate through 360 degrees during its orbit.
Tim, I want to “engage”.
See of you can figure out the significance of this hint, before I fully let the “cat out of the bag”.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
It is dangerous trying to guess what others are thinking (especially when their thinking is not in line with science as thought around the world).
If I had to take a stab, I would guess the two circles represent the motion of two different spots on two hypothetical moons circling a planet with different rates of rotation.
Well Tim, not an exact “stab”, but a few points for “close”.
This Moon/rotation issue has had a long history here. First, the clowns did not understand the definition of “rotating on its own axis”. Once they understood that, they tried to construct a new definition for “orbiting”.
They claimed that moving a cup around the center of a table, keeping the cup handle always pointing north, was “orbiting”. They could not understand “translational motion”.
Of course, as with all pseudoscience, their nonsense is easy to debunk.
Merely tape two felt tip markers to opposite sides of the cup. The markers are taped vertically, so they can mark the surface as the cup moves.’
In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the center. This is, of course, PURE orbital motion. The circles do not cross.
In Figure B, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the same direction, such as north. This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles. This is two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
As usual, not one “Spinner” will accept this reality.
That’s the fun part.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
tim…”Certainly, if the moon were stationary, then a rotation on its axis would cause us to see all sides from earth. But the moon is moving”.
Agreed, but very slowly in comparison to Earth’s rotational period. We turn 28 times while the Moon orbits once.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 16, 2018 at 2:12 AM
tim…”Certainly, if the moon were stationary, then a rotation on its axis would cause us to see all sides from earth. But the moon is moving”.
Agreed, but very slowly in comparison to Earth’s rotational period. We turn 28 times while the Moon orbits once.
_______________________________________________________
…and while it orbits once, it also rotates round its axis once for 360°
If slow or fast doesnt matter. Rotation is rotation.
“…and while it orbits once, it also rotates round its axis once for 360°
If slow or fast doesnt matter. Rotation is rotation.”
Rotation is rotation but spin is spin.
Mercury in two mercury years, rotate twice and spins once.
Or in about 176 earth days it rotates on it’s axis once.
How long does it take for the Moon to rotate on it’s axis which is at a tilt of 1.5 degrees relative to the sun?
gbaikie says:
October 16, 2018 at 6:48 PM
“…and while it orbits once, it also rotates round its axis once for 360°
If slow or fast doesnt matter. Rotation is rotation.”
Rotation is rotation but spin is spin.
___________________________________
Call it like you want.
Moon ist still rotating round its axis in 27.3 days.
Same time it needs for an orbit.
“Call it like you want.
Moon ist still rotating round its axis in 27.3 days.
Same time it needs for an orbit.”
Rotating around it’s axis which is tilted at 1.5 degrees relative to the sun?
So every 27.3 days, starting when tilted away from Earth, in 6.825 days it’s at equinox, then 6.825 days it’s pointing towards the Earth, then 6.825 days at equinox, and then 6.825 days it’s back to pointing away from Earth?
gbaikie says:
October 17, 2018 at 12:45 AM
Call it like you want.
Moon ist still rotating round its axis in 27.3 days.
Same time it needs for an orbit.
Rotating around its axis which is tilted at 1.5 degrees relative to the sun?
__________________________________________
No, its rotating round its rotation-axis which is tilded 7 degrees relativ to its orbit-plane.
Tilt toward a point is not possible.
–No, its rotating round its rotation-axis which is tilded 7 degrees relativ to its orbit-plane.
Tilt toward a point is not possible.–
Earth’s northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, when it’s summer in northern hemisphere and at time when winter is in southern hemisphere.
And when it’s summer in southern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere
is tilted towards the sun, and northern hemisphere is in winter.
Summer is when you are tilted towards the sun, and winter is when you are tilted away from the sun
gbaikie says:
October 18, 2018 at 12:49 AM
Fritz says:
“No, its rotating round its rotation-axis which is tilded 7 degrees relativ to its orbit-plane.
Tilt toward a point is not possible.”
Earths northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun
__________________________________________________________
We just spoke about rotation-axis, which is a straight line.
And a straight line cant be tilted towards a point; only towards a plane or annother straight line.
But not important.
If you accept there is a rotation-axis, however tilted, you also accept there is a rotation and Im satisfied.
Says the dude with almost a minor in physics.
Now boob, surely you can twist and spin better than that….
Who cares what a non-qual dink says.
You are not smart enough to tell if the moon is spinning or not.
That’s much better spin now, Spinner.
There there young padiwadisumbukisan
How the study of fysics going
Still working on that minor?
Tell me when you get to chapter 2
Spin, misrepresentations, and juvenile behavior, all in one comment.
You’re going to be another great clown, bob.
Just remember, the competition is fierce and the therapy is expensive.
There is a near side and far side of the Moon, but not a dark side.
On our moon, you can see the stars during the night and day.
“I think that the image on day one would look pretty much the same as the image on day 27..28.”
I assume you mean 27 to 28 earth day time period. In relation in the sun, a lunar day is equal to 29.5 earth days, but to stars it’s about 27 earth days. Anyhow, the moon orbits the earth.
From all locations on moon, one can see entire universe, but in one location on moon, you can view limited portion of the universe. And if near equator of Moon, 27 earth days later, one roughly sees that same portion of the universe. A year later with camera fixed, you get exact same portion of the universe.
Or it’s like Earth, each night you roughly get same sky, but over year period it changes and in year time period it return to same sky in relation to stars [though not in regards to the wandering planets which roughly appear like the stars].
steve…”If I went onto the surface of the moon, dark side, lay flat on my back looking up, I would get a lovely view of the stars.
If I were to lay there for approximately one month, what pattern of stars would I see?”
You’d see pretty much the same pattern as viewed from Earth as the Earth rotates but not quite. We rotate around Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere while the Moon revolves around us. The orbital path of the Moon would scan the heavens but that would be due to its orbital path not a rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Since the Moon orbits the Earth on roughly the same plane as the planets, on the dark side you’d be looking at a panorama roughly perpendicular to the Earth’s axis, not the N-S panorama as seen from Earth.
NASA GISS data for September just came out. According to NASA it’s been the 6th hotest September “ever”… but also, the coldest September of the last 6 years, and the smallest monthly anomaly of 2018, tied with June.
5th warmest September for JMA, and the last 7 have all been warmer than any Sep previously.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/sep_wld.html
Caveat: that’s the straight ranking without uncertainties.
9th warmest Sep according to RSS.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
Dang barry, how can they torture the data even more?
How about this: “September was so hot that the Earth heated the Sun to a new record temperature. This portends imminent danger for Earth, as the Sun will now radiate with even more energy.”
(How’d I do? When do I get my check from “Big Pseudoscience”?
RSS data is garbage not to be believed.
ONLY DR. SPENCER’S DATA IS CORRECT.
Salvatore, I’m afraid two years ago you would have told us the contrary.
At that time, we had RSS 3.3 (with a cooling bias) and UAH 5.6 (with a warming bias).
Two years ago RSS data was yet to be manipulated.
Nevertheless I have always gone with UAH data, and always will.
You know that GISS and UAH don’t measure the same thing, don’t you?
Nylo…”NASA GISS data for September just came out. According to NASA its been the 6th hotest September ever but also, the coldest September of the last 6 years, and the smallest monthly anomaly of 2018, tied with June”.
What more prioof do we need that NASA GISS fudges data?
Take a look here and tell me September past was the 6th hottest of all time.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
This is the same GISS who claimed 2014 as the hottest year on record, using a 38% confidence level. These people are shysters of the highest order.
What more prioof do we need that NASA GISS fudges data?
The proof you need is objective verification that UAH is superior to all other data sets.
Then you need to ‘prove’ that the surface record should mirror the lower stratospheric record in every respect.
There is no proof that either is the case. All the data sets have problems and challenges, and ONLY the partisan spruik for a favourite.
The proof you need is objective verification that UAH is superior to all other data sets.
They abound. I have already said it but I repeat for those who obstinately refuse to face the reality:
– better coverage,
– better coherence with the evolution of sea level,
– better consistency with the evolution of the vertical temperature profile,
– better consistency with the dendros,
– better consistency with the evolution of melting glaciers,
– better consistency with the evolution of snow cover,
– etc.
phi…well said.
There is 100% proof that the data from other sources has been manipulated and this has been presented on this web-site many times.
Barry you just choose not to believe it. Where as us who know better do believe it and do not use the data.
Who wants to use tainted data.
So the only data that will determine global surface temperatures is and will be Dr. Spencer’s data.
The rest is manipulated garbage.
barry…”The proof you need is objective verification that UAH is superior to all other data sets”.
UAH does not reduce confidence levels to claim record warming years.
UAH does not interpolate and homogenize data in a climate model after scrapping over 75% of its real data.
UAH does not claim catastrophic warming/climate change and the data backs them. Since Hansen initially put forward the climate catastrophe hysteria in 1988, there has been little or no true warming.
UAH claims the atmosphere is highly complex and that climate scientists are still learning about it. The alarmists all claim their unvalidated models are correct, yet none of them have ever been proved correct over 30 years.
UAH data has been verified by weather balloons.
UAH data reflects what you see when you look out your windows or go outside and experience the atmosphere first hand.
Goodness me, Phi.
What a pile of rubbish.
There is no special correlation between UAH lower trop temp records and:
Tree-rings
Glaciers
Snow cover
Sea level
That is just made-up pablum. Bunk. Bull.
Yep, better coverage overall than land – but remembering that land surface readings occur twice daily at their various locations, while satellites take a few days to between tracks of the same point.
The only way to check evolution of vertical temp profile for satellite atmos temps is with radiosondes, and the radiosondes are not all the same. Some agree better with RSS, some with UAH.
And your list COMPLETELY omits all the issues and challenges with tropospheric temps, like contamination from stratosphere, calibrating changes in satellites and satellite devices, orbital decay, drift, and a host of other issues. The kind of oversight typical of the biased.
As I said, ONLY the partisan spruik for a favourite.
Do not get upset barry.
It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Until proven otherwise, no observational data is consistent with station indices. But again, if you have sources, I’m interested.
For UAH TLT, it’s different. Just two graphics to instruct you:
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
http://oi67.tinypic.com/2wpr0j7.jpg
“While Phi made the claim that the trees bear out UAH lower troposphere data over ground temps, I dont see a single instance of a better fit of tree data to one temp series over another as particularly solid. This is particularly true considering that there are known divergent datasets.”
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/confirmation-of-phis-reconstruction/
Exactly. Matching wiggles on charts by choosing one data set out of many that diverge is basically cherry-picking.
You do not mention the uncertainties and possible errors and confounding factors.
You do not mention that this latewood density data set is different from others that agree more with Had-cru.
You offer highly selected information to try to prove a point omitting the issues which others have brought up with you before.
This is not objective, this is not rigorous. This is “selling” an idea.
“Do not get upset barry.”
I am not upset, but if you make a habit of this kind of comment you could probably cause me to become annoyed.
An objective analysis finds that no temp data set is superior to another. There are too many issues and uncertainty to make that call. Cherry-picking for correlations doesn’t change that.
Unsupported criticism.
Briffa 1998 (or Schweingruber) contains the whole MXD series of the Northern Hemisphere, the opposite of cherry-picking.
Briffa 2013 contains to my knowledge the regional data that have the longest common term with TLT. If you have better, I’m interested.
You see, the important thing is not so much that I can present datasets more consistent with UAH than with Had-Crut, it is rather the general incapacity, and yours in particular, to provide any data of observations consistent with station temperatures.
NASA AND GISS data are garbage and should be 100% ignored. Why waste time of even reporting or talking about their results.
Who cares what they say.
Your predictions are garbage and should be 100% ignored. Why waste time reporting or talking about your results.
Who cares what they say?
Salvatore…”NASA AND GISS data are garbage and should be 100% ignored. Why waste time of even reporting or talking about their results”.
I think you meant NOAA and GISS data, I know that you know GISS is a NASA division even though many legitimate NOAA scientists are probably wondering why.
You might add Had-crut to that since they all seem to be in cahoots, along with NCAR. The Climategate emails revealed collusion to interfere in peer review, fudge data, and even applaud the death of a skeptic, John Daly.
In the emails, Phil Jones of Had-crut threatened that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that papers from certain skeptics would be kept out of IPCC reviews. Jones is a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews and he is partnered with another CLA, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR.
Gavin Schmidt now runs GISS and he runs realclimate, an uber-alarmist rag, with his good-buddy Michael Mann, who was front and centre in the Climategate scandal interfering in peer review and being identified as the author of The Trick, a scam to hide declining temperatures. When the trick was revealed, Schmidt defended it on realclimate as just a prank.
GISS, NOAA, and Had-crut draw their raw data from GHCN, a database of confused gibberish and questionable accuracy. But hey, who needs accuracy and clarity when your intention is to mislead the public into believing we are facing climate catastrophe.
GHCN, NOAA, and GISS have been revealed by chiefio, Kristian, and Bob Tisdale as cheaters of the highest order. It’s either that or they are just plain incompetent. Maybe a bit of both.
Svante supports all this chicanery, as do other alarmists posting here.
Yes correct.
Oh Gordon,
In the emails, Phil Jones of Had-crut threatened that he and Kevin would see to it that papers from certain skeptics would be kept out of IPCC reviews. Jones is a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews and he is partnered with another CLA, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR.
The papers that excited such disgust were still published in the IPCC. Jones’ feelings don’t actually translate to dictatorial control.
What would you say if some AGW skeptics teamed up to take the raw data and construct their own temp record?
What would you say if three independent skeptical groups corroborated the official records with their best efforts?
What would you say if there was remarkable correlation between all data sets? Even the Japanese version, even UAH?
The difference in trend between UAH and NOAA since 1979 is:
0.04 C/decade
4 hundredths of a degree C per decade.
I kid you not.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
My university math teacher use the word “trick” on a daily basis. Math is a scam?
The real story:
https://tinyurl.com/yaz47oxs
Gordon Robertson says:
“Svante supports all this chicanery, as do other alarmists posting here.”
Yes I do, GHCN, NOAA, and GISS are pretty good.
I do think the early 40’s should be adjusted down though, those years do not match proxy comparisons very well.
Ball4
About two years ago, I told Norman that Flynn reminded me of the delusional knight. Definitely some similarities with JD as well.
Only one blogger, however, has taken it upon themselves to correct Einstein………
snape…”Only one blogger, however, has taken it upon themselves to correct Einstein”
I did not simply correct him, I proved him wrong. None of you rocket scientists have refuted what I said.
The second is based on the rotational period of a planet with a fixed angular velocity. If the second dilates, the planet has to change its velocity.
Care to take a shot at refuting that?
that should be rotational velocity aka angular velocity.
Gordon Robertson
I have linked you to actual experimental data showing you are full of nonsense. gallopingcamel gave you a real world example of where Einstein’s equations are necessary to design particle accelerators.
It seems whatever valid data you are shown you reject it. That does not mean you are a genius smarter than the world’s top scientist. It means you are a true crackpot with stupid nonsense ideas not founded on any actual experiment or research and most are illogical and irrational (crazy). No you have not proven Einstein wrong at all, you have only demonstrated to those visiting this blog that you are a delusional crackpot to be avoided.
You make up nonsense, won’t accept real experiments, avoid things you can’t explain.
You are the crackpot of this blog, JDHuffman is the dork, and DREMT is the goofball that supports the two lunatics on this blog and thinks his posts have value.
Norman contradicts his own words, again!
“I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
“crackpot” x 3, “dork” x 1, “goofball” x 1, “lunatics” x 1, “nonsense” x 3, “illogical” x 1, “irrational” x 1, “crazy” x 1, “stupid” x 1, “delusional” x 1
“science of the issue”, maybe x 1 (?), if being generous.
JDHuffman
I do want to stick to science. You are the dork who makes unlimited declarations with zero supporting evidence. You reject valid and correct experiments. With someone who is rational, logical reasonable I will discuss science. You are a dork that can’t be reasoned with. So many have explained that the Moon rotates as it orbits. I have described a valid experiment you can do with a tennis ball that and rod. You won’t do the tests but you continue to say all real and valid science is wrong and for some unknown reason (you never offer evidence) you are right. That makes you a complete dork!
So if you develop scientific or logical reasoning, you will see I am more than happy to engage in thoughtful scientific debates. If you are a dork and make stupid unproven declarations I will call you what you are, a dork!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You jump right in to defend your love don’t you. Either you are married to g.e.r.a.n or are very close. You are probably the dumbest troll on this blog.
I guess if I say anything against your sweetheart you are sure to jump in with defense.
Norman, you are just some crackpot goofball dork who regularly spouts irrational and illogical nonsense, yet believe you have something worthwhile to say because you are a crazy, delusional and stupid lunatic.
(those are observations. not insults, and I stand by them, so you are not allowed to be offended).
JDHuffman
I will quit calling you a dork if you are able to support your declarations with evidence, experimental proof, valid linked science.
With the Moon rotation concept you provide no proof, no evidence, no logic. You declare people to be clowns.
I give you many links to try to correct your distorted grasp of rotation. You are not the least bit willing to consider that you are probably the one who is wrong and NOT the established science community. If you have a view that goes completely against established science, you need to up the evidence a bit. You have done none.
You make a declaration that a horse turning is not rotating on its axis. No proof, no evidence, just a mindless declaration.
https://wikidiff.com/rotate/turn
Note rotate is a synonym of turn.
JDHuffman
I will quit calling you a dork if you are able to support your declarations with evidence, experimental proof, valid linked science.
With the Moon rotation concept you provide no proof, no evidence, no logic. You declare people to be clowns.
I give you many links to try to correct your distorted grasp of rotation. You are not the least bit willing to consider that you are probably the one who is wrong and NOT the established science community. If you have a view that goes completely against established science, you need to up the evidence a bit. You have done none.
You make a declaration that a horse turning is not rotating on its axis. No proof, no evidence, just a mindless declaration.
https://tinyurl.com/ybyt6qa8
Note rotate is a synonym of turn.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says
And you are completely in love and devoted to JDHuffman (previously g.e.r.a.n).
Maybe you just fell in love with you wisdom and quest for truth.
I think it is awesome you are transforming into what you have claimed to oppose. A troll. So stop trolling.
Norman finally recognizes his own words, and his typical defense of them, for the trolling it is.
Norman, now I don’t need to expound on your unhealthy mental condition.
Your 5 ranting comments do that for me….
Norm,
What you say is true, so the best thing is to ignore JD. Like you said, he just makes declarations with no support whatsoever.
In his only real attempt of explaining the motion of an object in terms related to physics, he hilariously rambled on about rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards.
Ignore the dumb@$$.
Norman suffers abnormal obsessions and incessant delusions. And SGW calls himself a skeptic, but doesn’t know what he is skeptical of!
You boys need help.
DA just announced that he was in therapy. Maybe you all could get a group rate?
norman…”I give you many links to try to correct your distorted grasp of rotation”.
Throughout this fracas, not one of you pseudo-scientists has addressed my claim that a body rotating about it’s own axis must have an angular velocity and momentum around that axis. A body like the Moon, with one facing always facing the Earth, has no angular velocity/momentum about its axis.
The Moon does translate via curvilinear translation as it is FORCED around it’s orbit with one face always pointed inward. That means all points on the Moon are traveling in the Earth orbit parallel to the surface and NOT rotating about an internal Moon axis.
You guys are as confused about kinematics as you are about AGW and the 2nd law.
Gordon sputters:
“A body like the Moon, with one facing always facing the Earth, has no angular velocity/momentum about its axis.”
More statements without any proof to back it up. Gordon mumbles:
“The Moon does translate via curvilinear translation as it is FORCED around its orbit with one face always pointed inward.”
Wrong. That movement is NOT translation. What is wrong with your head? An object always pointing one face to the center of orbit is changing its position. A fixed line drawn through that object does not keep the same direction throughout the motion, and therefore does not meet the definition of translation.
Another definition of curvilinear translation:
“Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
You do know what congruent is?
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Look at page 9 of the above reference if you need illustrations to comprehend translation. The moon is not performing this type of motion.
Your ignorance of basic kinematics is breathtaking.
Your definitions of translation were understood perfectly well the first thirty times you linked to them. Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, even though it will be different to the definition of curvilinear translation you provide (where no change in direction is forced and so a line through the object keeps the same direction throughout).
And yet 30 times, Curly, Moe and Larry (Gordon, JD, DREMT) miss the point.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk is all you guys seem to understand.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Team Dork shrieks:
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, even though it will be different to the definition of curvilinear translation you provide!”
Wrong, lamebrain. Rectilinear translation forced into a curve is curvilinear translation. And the requirement for curvilinear translation, and any translation for that matter, is STILL that a fixed line passing through the object remains pointing the same direction throughout its motion.
You numbskulls STILL don’t get it.
You completely missed the point. Try reading my comment again, this time with an adult level of reading comprehension.
“You completely missed the point”
No. Your comment was ignorant. We are talking kinematics here. which does not concern itself with the cause of the motion. You analyze the motion in question.
Gordon said the moon’s motion was curvilinear translation. Try to keep up. The moon’s motion does not meet the definition of curvilinear translation according to multiple references. The definition of curvilinear translation does not change. It either is or it’s not. A line through the moon does not keep the same direction throughout its motion, which you are not getting. The moon is not translating, curvilinear or rectilinear.
Once again for Team Dork:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
This is what it states in the description:
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth. Except for libration effects, this results in it keeping the same face turned towards the Earth, as seen in the figure on the left. (The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon didn’t spin at all, then it would alternately show its near and far sides to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right.”
Get some glasses. The moon on the right is translating.
You keep telling me things I already understand, as if it is some kind of revelation. What was my very first sentence?
“Your definitions of translation were understood perfectly well the first thirty times you linked to them.”
Try to read on from there. Take your time. Don’t lash out with unnecessary knee-jerk responses. There was only one other sentence. That was:
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, even though it will be different to the definition of curvilinear translation you provide (where no change in direction is forced and so a line through the object keeps the same direction throughout).”
Understand? I already know that rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity can be called curvilinear translation. That’s why Gordon called it that. I already understand the definitions of curvilinear translation that you have provided, and that they are different to what Gordon is saying. OK?
Team Dork,
Is your name Gordon? No? Having trouble with reading comprehension? The comments were addressed to Gordon. The only person you speak for is yourself.
Is your last name Buttinski? That would be my guess. In the meantime, stop trolling.
So why don’t we wait for Curly to show up and make more of a fool of himself. Then you can add pointless fluff to the conversation.
Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, and it would look like the moon on the left, in your link.
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation”
Yes.
“and it would look like the moon on the left, in your link.”
NO. A big no.
You keep telling me you understand, and then make a comment contrary to the definition of translation.
If you draw a line through the center of that moon on the left and through the point on its surface which is always pointing towards the center of orbit, then that line is not pointing in the same direction throughout its orbit, now is it. Therefore not translating. Basically, translation is just changing the position of the object without rotating it, which is what the moon on the right is doing.
With the moon on the left, it’s inside face is always pointing towards the center of orbit, so that a person standing at the center of orbit will see the same face all the time, because its rotating on its own axis.
It’s getting to the point where its pointless to continue, just like I did with JD. Curly is next, shortly.
So once again, you repeat what I already understand. I truly think you are unable to read and comprehend plain English when it runs contrary to your programming.
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, even though it will be different to the definition of curvilinear translation you provide (where no change in direction is forced and so a line through the object keeps the same direction throughout)”.
I mentioned the line through the object keeping the same direction throughout in my opening comment. You still keep missing the point.
Team Dork states (which is also his POINT):
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, and it would look like the moon on the left, in your link.”
The above statement by Team Dork is COMPLETELY IN ERROR. That is my point, that YOUR POINT, is WRONG.
Once again. The moon on the left is NOT translating AS YOU SAY IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Per the 30 repeated definitions I posted.
Got it? Translation does not, as you say, “look like the moon on the left, in your link.”
Do I need to say it in Spanish?
La traducción no, como usted dice, “parece la luna a la izquierda, en su enlace.”
DREMT: I understand your definition of the > symbol. You’ve posted it 30 times.
DREMT: BTW, 7 > 11
SGW: No, No, No. 7 > 11 is FALSE! > means greater than. It’s a universal definition.
DREMT: You keep telling me things I already understand, and BTW
4 > 9
SGW: Grrr!
SGW understands and agrees that rectilinear translation forced into a curve, is still translation.
Then I point out the fact that this motion would appear as the moon on the left. This conflicts with SGW’s programming, and he experiences a fatal internal system error, which forces him to reboot and begin the discussion from the beginning again.
Apparently “forced into a curve”, in SGW-speak, does not involve a change in direction of the object.
“Apparently “forced into a curve”, in SGW-speak, does not involve a change in direction of the object”
True. The phrase is vague.
But more importantly, “Translation” does have a universal definition, and it does not involve change in direction of the object, as you seem to think it does, DREMT.
…whoosh!
DREMT inexplicably makes a noise, and thinks it solves all his troubles.
Wow, even the concept of the “whoosh!” itself went over his head. That’s meta.
Well, DREMT, tried to help you out by agreeing partly with you.
You guys can redefine things as you wish for your own secret TEAM discussions.
But if you want to communicate with anyone outside the TEAM using those definitions, you will continue to be confused and have to waste time discussing what things mean.
Now Nate, please stop trolling.
Thats fine, DREMT, keep on ducking, dodging, denying responsibility for your own confusions.
Thats fine, Nate: keep on being obsessed with me, ducking, dodging, denying responsibility for your own confusions, and missing the point.
Or…you could just please stop trolling.
“SGW understands and agrees that rectilinear translation forced into a curve, is still translation. Then I point out the fact that this motion would appear as the moon on the left.”
No it is NOT a fact that the moon on the left is translating. It’s motion does not meet the criteria of the definitions of translation that I posted apparently 30 times, which you STILL don’t get!
“This conflicts with SGWs programming,..”
No. It conflicts with the true definition of translation.
“Apparently forced into a curve, in SGW-speak, does not involve a change in direction of the object.”
“Forced on a curve” is your private “speak”. As I explained, and you still don’t get, kinematics deals with the motion without regard to its cause. Curvilinear translation does not involve a change in direction of the object per the exacting definitions that I’ve posted multiple times. ANY tranlation does not involve a change is direction of the object, which you continually over and over do not comprehend.
The moon on the left is NOT translating, BECAUSE, if you draw a fixed line through that moon, that line does remain pointing in the same direction throughout its orbit, which does not meet the criteria of an translating object.
You need to really brush up on your reading comprehension. Everything is going right over your head.
…there’s that fatal internal system error, and reboot back to the beginning of the discussion.
Meanwhile, all that needs to be comprehended is:
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation, even though it will be different to the definition of curvilinear translation you provide (where no change in direction is forced and so a line through the object keeps the same direction throughout).”
Gordon is explaining it further downthread, so you can go and incessantly repeat yourself to him, if you like.
Gordon is just as confused as you.
You are incapable of logically responding to my point by point comments. Whoosh! Right over your head.
Sorry SGW, but I already understand your arguments, better than you do. That’s how I know you’re wrong.
Whoosh!
“I already understand your arguments, better than you do”
as he repeatedly misunderstands ‘translation’.
Hilarious!
Nate the obsessive weirdo just cannot stop embarrassing and debasing himself! Hilarious!
DREMT,
You and your TEAM use a universally understood science term, ‘translation’, but redefine it, to match with your preconceived notions.
‘Translation’ is not sufficient to describe and object moving in space AND changing its orientation.
Stop using debate tricks, and deal honestly with this critique.
Show us a reputable source that defines ‘translation’ the way you do.
norman…”I have linked you to actual experimental data showing you are full of nonsense”.
Link away.
Neither you nor anyone else has explained how time can dilate when the second is defined based on the period of rotation of the Earth, which has a constant angular velocity.
For the second to shrink or expand, the day would have to become longer or shorter, which would mean it would have to speed up or slow down it’s period of rotation.
I had not thought of this before, but Newton was heads and shoulders above Einstein as a research scientist. He actually did the work that discovered gravity, optics, calculus, and so on.
Newton claimed time is absolute and it’s plain he was right and Einstein wrong. Time cannot change its units because they are fixed to the angular velocity of the Earth.
Gordon Robertson
Tim Folkerts has already told you that the second is an arbitrary unit to measure time. In the past it was connected to the rotational period of the Earth. It is NO longer based upon that!
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/second-s-or-sec
So unless you grasp that the second is just a manmade unit of cyclic nature to measure time with (it is not time). Also the Earth does not have a constant angular velocity. Because of tidal effects it is slowly slowing down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
Unless you lose your grip on what you think time is any discussion with you is meaningless.
“A body like the Moon, with one facing always facing the Earth, has no angular velocity/momentum about its axis.”
Yes, it DOES have angular momentum. If you could suddenly “turn off gravity”, the moon would fly off into space, still rotating on its own axis once per month relative to the stars. A huge torque would be required to halt that rotation.
If you spin a hockey puck around on the end of a thin string once per second and then cut the string (or just let go), the hockey puck will glide across the ice, rotating on its own axis once per second.
Incorrect, Tim.
The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. The apparent motion you’re “seeing from the stars” is NOT real. It would certainly NEVER show up if gravity were turned off, and the Moon went flying off.
The ONLY angular momentum it has is from its orbit.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 11:50 AM
The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. The apparent motion you’re “seeing from the stars” is NOT real. It would certainly NEVER show up if gravity were turned off, and the Moon went flying off.
___________________________________
Flying off, leaving the orbit, moon would keep its rotation.
Same as hammer when hammer-throwing, when its released.
“Yes, it DOES have angular momentum. If you could suddenly turn off gravity, the moon would fly off into space, still rotating on its own axis once per month relative to the stars. A huge torque would be required to halt that rotation.”
Wiki:
“Gravity-gradient stabilization (a.k.a. “tidal stabilization”) is a method of stabilizing artificial satellites or space tethers in a fixed orientation using only the orbited body’s mass distribution and gravitational field. The main advantage over using active stabilization with propellants, gyroscopes or reaction wheels is the low use of power and resources.
The idea is to use the Earth’s gravitational field and tidal forces to keep the spacecraft aligned in the desired orientation. The gravity of the Earth decreases according to the inverse-square law, and by extending the long axis perpendicular to the orbit, the “lower” part of the orbiting structure will be more attracted to the Earth. The effect is that the satellite will tend to align its axis of minimum moment of inertia vertically.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization
Roughly, everything within Earth gravity [not leaving or entering it] like the Moon is going about 30 km/sec in orbit around the Sun.
And if you somehow “disappear” Earth’s gravity, basically everything else continues to to go 30 km/sec around the sun.
Let’s say you had something in low earth orbit which was tidally locked [was always pointing one side to Earth surface].
So in LEO it’s going about 7.8 km/sec and orbits once every 90 mins. What happens if Earth’s gravity “disappears”.
It might difficult to imagine since gravity does not normally disappear.
But you can make it “disappear” by moving away from it. If add 3.5 km/sec to it’s orbital velocity- it leaves Earth’s gravity well.
7.8 + 3.5 = 11.2 km/sec and earth escape is 11.1 km/sec.
So one could have a 100 km high pole in LEO, and one end of pole points at Earth. You put gyros on pole to measure any change in torque. And pole is perpendicular to vector it’s orbiting earth and that is the vector you add the 3.5 Km per sec of thrust to in order to escape Earth’s gravity well.
Now if thousands of km away, rather than hundreds at LEO, the gravity gradient “works about the same” but in about a min of time one could accelerate to to 11.1 km/sec. So in sense in terms where you are relate to Earth you are roughly in the same “spot”/area and have quickly achieve escape velocity- or in sense you have “disappeared gravity” in about 1 min of time and going like a bat out hell in regards to Earth in rear view mirror.
So after the burn, I would predict it still points at earth and continues to point at Earth. And when it “left” and it was pointing at Earth and was pointing at the sun [it could pointing in any direction in regards to the sun, but suppose it was pointing at sun] then it would continue to point at the sun.
Gravity stabilization, ok.
Uses gravity to apply torque on an oblong object until it stabilizes at a spin rate that keeps it facing Earth.
Turn off gravity, and no torque anymore. So the object keeps its spin fixed at what it was.
Moons spin was 1/27 rev per day, so it keeps that spin going.
–Nate says:
October 18, 2018 at 6:51 AM
Gravity stabilization, ok.
Uses gravity to apply torque on an oblong object until it stabilizes at a spin rate that keeps it facing Earth.
Turn off gravity, and no torque anymore. So the object keeps its spin fixed at what it was.–
But it orbits once every 90 mins- And I assume you claiming it spins once per 90 mins.
A 100 km long pole spinning once every 90 mins is a lot to torque.
So radius 50 km, 100 km diameter times pi is 314 km circumference or ends travel at 314 km in 90 min or 209 kph [129.7 mph]
We find something useful, here.
100 km pole, once stabilized in synchronous Earth orbit, the outer point travels 209 kph FASTER than the inner point.
YES/NO ?
Then once gravity is turned off, this difference in velocity should continue. IE the inner point will not suddenly speed up to match the speed of the outer point. That would require a strong torque.
YES/NO ?
Then the rotation of the 100 km pole, at 1 rev/90 min, must continue.
YES/NO ?
Within your scenario of applying burns to speed up to 11.1 km/sec.
The burn I assume is applied to the center of mass of the pole?
Then the same amount of velocity is added to all points on the pole, the center as well as the 2 ends.
YES/NO?
Therefore the relative velocity of the two ends, 209 kph, is unchanged by the burn(s).
YES/NO?
–Nate says:
October 19, 2018 at 8:28 AM
We find something useful, here.
100 km pole, once stabilized in synchronous Earth orbit, the outer point travels 209 kph FASTER than the inner point.
YES/NO ?–
Yes. If I have to pick yes or no. It “should be” traveling slower because it’s in higher orbit and lower part should be traveling faster due to being lower in orbit. Or structure must be strong enough or it will pull itself apart [depending it’s mass there would be tons of tensional force involved].
–Then once gravity is turned off, this difference in velocity should continue. IE the inner point will not suddenly speed up to match the speed of the outer point. That would require a strong torque.
YES/NO ?–
No.
Now, I “turned gravity off” by adding velocity as it should be the same as if as one straighten the bent spacetime [turned gravity off bending of space effect] and btw I have not added enough velocity to escape the Sun’s gravity well. I would need to add about 12 km/sec more.
Or added 3.5 km per second to the lower part and upper part [and middle part] of pipe.
Likewise if you could switch off gravity the upper and lower part would not “require” a different velocity.
Since I require min or two to acceleration, the tensional force will cease in a min or two. And since acceleration is done when pointing at sun, that small different will cause very small amount of tensional force.
Next post:
–The burn I assume is applied to the center of mass of the pole?
Then the same amount of velocity is added to all points on the pole, the center as well as the 2 ends.
YES/NO?–
If structure was strong enough it could only in the middle- to do in a min or two creates “artifical gravity” or gee forces.
Or it need less structure strength if the constant burn lasted 10 mins or a hour. A hohmann transfer isn’t a hohmann transfer if you used low thrust.
By thrusting along entire length of pipe, there would be would no such a load on this very long pipe.
Or gravity well is not the issue, by thrusting in middle the ends will bend back unless there is not much mass and/or it’s structural strong enough.
One would much less problem if rocket was bottom of pipe and you thrust perpendicular to the vector of the orbit [which also isn’t a hohmann transfer]
“Then the same amount of velocity is added to all points on the pole, the center as well as the 2 ends.
YES/NO?”
No answer given, Gbaike.
“YES/NO ?
No.
Now, I turned gravity off by adding velocity as it should be the same as if as one straighten the bent spacetime [turned gravity off bending of space effect] ”
There is no need to invoke General Relativity here, not a black hole. Newtonian gravity should be sufficient.
“IE the inner point will not suddenly speed up to match the speed of the outer point. That would require a strong torque.
YES/NO ?”
No.
You seem to think that the bottom slower moving tip WILL speed up to catch-up to the 209 kph faster moving upper tip.
That means that the lower tip is accelerating more than the upper tip. How can that be if your thrust is applied at the cm or equally at all points?
This is precisely the point. Your thrust is not applying torque on the rod, is it?
Re:
“Or it need less structure strength if the constant burn lasted 10 mins or a hour. A hohmann transfer isnt a hohmann transfer if you used low thrust.”
You could have say 10 burns at the same point in orbit [or at perigee] and each burn raises the apogee with each burn and thereby create less gee force and do hohmann transfer to escape this way. And assuming structure was strong enough and/or structure mass [particularly at both ends was less massive- so one taper from fat middle to narrow ends]. Then you canh thrust at middle only. This also give something similar to lunar orbit, though it at say, the 7th or 8th burn it should be quite a bit more of elliptical orbit than the Moon.
Nate says:
October 19, 2018 at 11:18 AM
Then the same amount of velocity is added to all points on the pole, the center as well as the 2 ends.
YES/NO?
No answer given, Gbaike.
Yes.
If the structure doesn’t break.
And if only bends a lot, also, roughly, yes.
“100 km pole, once stabilized in synchronous Earth orbit, the outer point travels 209 kph FASTER than the inner point.”
YES/NO ?–
Yes. ”
Then,
“Then the same amount of velocity is added to all points on the pole, the center as well as the 2 ends.
YES/NO?
Yes.”
Now combine these two facts.
The outer and inner points velocities differ by 209 kph, even AFTER leaving orbit.
Thus it must be rotating.
That difference means the pole is rotating.
“I did not simply correct him, I proved him wrong.”
OMG what a load of horse manure! Gordon proved Einstein wrong?! ROTFLMFAO. Maybe you should publish your “proof” in a physics journal?
I’ve never seen somebody with such a massive noggin.
There are medications available to deal with your delusions.
Ha! DREMT has weird fantasies.
Thinks people who point out his hypocrisy and repeated errors couldnt possibly have a point to make.
They must be obsessed. Good job rationalizing.
No, I just acknowledge that you are completely obsessed with me. I don’t think any other people are, apart from maybe Norman. It’s a little unnerving, but funny.
(taken it upon “himself”, not themselves.)
Snape : (taken it upon himself, not themselves.)
You are showing your ancient expiration date. Modern PC demands gender neutral pronouns. and as “himself” is now verboten (and herself can not compete directly) there is a movement towards systematic use of the plural, modeled upon the suppression of thou in favor of you.
Seriously. Today I read a doctors account of interaction with a patient in which she said, “They took off their scarf to reveal serious bruising” and so on.
hope that helps
Gordon
Gordon,
Did you know that for 20 years there have been 7280 weather stations included in the GHCN monthly global temp record?
I’ll quote from the 1997 version 2 paper.
“GHCN version 2 contains mean temperature data for a network of 7280 stations…”
Peterson and Vose 1997
Version 3 is listed on the .gov website of the US, last updated early this year.
“Since the early 1990s the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) dataset has been an internationally recognized source of data for the study of observed variability and change in land surface air temperature. It provides monthly mean temperature data for 7280 stations from 226 countries and territories…”
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly-ghcn-m-version-3
The 7280 stations have remained in the GHCN database for 20 years.
So what does your old NOAA link tell us that you always fail to quote?
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
The data record grew from 6000 stations in version 1 to 7280 stations in version 2. There are still 7280 stations.
Nothing was deleted.
Trying to convince such a permanently lying and insulting person is useless. He never will accept what you write.
Bindidon,, when you run out of facts and logic, you can always resort to slurs.
Oh….
Oh… see a far better example of what you try to illogically link to me:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325207
And I never saw you writing ‘slurs’ about people calling me an idiot.
The reason is simple: they belong to the same church as yours.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325193
Yes, Norman is one of the worst. But, he’s under-educated, low-intellect, and has a dead-end job.
It’s legitimate to expect more from you.
Gordon will respond positively to facts and logic, I’ve seen him do it. But, if people attack him, he will respond, as I do.
(The “x 3”, “x 1” etc. are the number of times Norman used each word in that one comment, just in case people somehow didn’t get that. The defense at the end of my comment that Bindidon linked to is what Norman typically uses to justify his comments).
Yes DREMT, that string of comments is typical of Norman. He claims he ONLY wants to discuss science, but this is NO evidence to support his claim. He constantly attacks people. He has no meaningful background in physics, and often uses links that he can’t even understand.
He’s just a clown.
But at least he can type.
I held up a mirror for Norman, and he didn’t like what he saw. To do so, I had to make a number of “counter-insults” (as Bindidolina would call them) to Norman, using his own words, thus also holding up a mirror for Bindidolina, who again, as we have seen, didn’t like what s/he saw.
It’s hardly surprising, but none of these people like what they see in the mirror.
Dr. Spencer’s satellite data is the only accurate data and the only data I will use when evaluation global temperatures.
I ignore all of the other tainted data.
barry…”Did you know that for 20 years there have been 7280 weather stations included in the GHCN monthly global temp record?”
Did you read what NOAA admitted right on their webpage as late as November 2015? They admitted that they are using less than 1500 surface stations globally.
It does not matter if GHCN has 7000 stations or 700,000 stations. NOAA uses less than 1500 of them.
Are you blind? In the very next sentence at your favourite link NOAA says:
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
How do you miss that every time?
Bindidon has shown you the updated station count charts – the 7280 stations are still there. More than 2000 of them are routinely updated every month, and they continue to add data retrospectively.
You’ve seen charts, you’ve been shown the revision papers. the 7280 stations are still in the data base.
Quoting the same old thing while ignoring the rest of the page it comes from – which refutes what you’re saying – is either abysmally addles or ideologically brittle. Read your link for comprehension, man, and stop selectively omitting information.
I add downthread a new comment comparing GHCN V3 and NOAA land, with the usual station count chart.
Thanks.
evaluating
From Cervantes classic, “Don Robertson”……..excuse me, “Quixote”:
“Suddenly Don Quixote sees clouds of dust coming along the road and mistakes them for two great armies on the brink of battle. Sancho warns his master that the two clouds actually come from two herds of sheep. Unconvinced, Don Quixote describes in great detail the knights he thinks he sees in the dust.”
As promised, below is the list of “2LoT Deniers”. These commenters believe that the black body (green plate) can raise the temperature of the blue plate. This would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, hence the name of the tribe.
Interestingly, it is almost the same names as on the Spinners list.
Norman Grinvalds
David Appell
Tim Folkerts
Ball4
SGW
E. Swanson
barry
Kristian (?)
Bart (?)
Fritz (?)
Nate
Snape
Svante
bobdroege
bobdesbond
La Pangolina/Bindidon
Gallopingcamel (?)
(?) indicates that I can’t recall with certainty if that commenter has committed to “cold” warming “hot”, so it’s more of a “guilt by association” thingy.
Anyone may have their name added, by denying 2LoT. Anyone may have their name removed by admitting that the green plate cannot warm the blue plate. I’m happy to add/remove names, as necessary.
Here is the correct situation, with both plates at the same temperature of 244 K:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
The “2LoT Denier” situation has the blue plate at a temperature of 262 K! A mysterious, 2LoT-violating, 18 K rise, which is impossible!
Here is an experiment you can try, similar to the Blue Plate Green Plate devised by the Rabbet, but this is not a thought experiment.
The Blue Plate will be represented by an unbaked cake
The Green Plate will be the oven door.
Set the oven to 350 with the door open and try to bake the cake.
Then try again, this time with the oven door closed.
You will find that the oven temperature is higher with the door closed.
Then you can eat your experimental results.
In Violation of JD’s interpretation of the 2nd Law.
So, what’s wrong?
JD’s knowledge of the 2nd Law of course.
This is the absolute stupidity that has to be exposed. Poor bob demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge about the relevant physics, yet goes off believing he is brilliant.
Typical clown behavior.
Who’s up next, Ball4, SGW, Snape?
You could have tried the experiment before spouting off about my brilliance or the lack there of.
Try quoting the 2nd law for me please?
Thermodynamics is usually studied after an introductory set of three semesters of physics and other preparatory work.
Here is a list of things you get wrong
You think a photon some how knows the temperature of the body that emitted the photon.
You think there is no mechanism for the greenhouse effect. This can be modeled as a harmonic oscillator using equations you would have learned if you had taken physics classes after your 3 semester tour.
You think a blackbody can magically transform into a reflector.
You think the 2nd law prohibits transfer of photons from a cold body to a warm body.
You think the Moon doesn’t rotate on it’s axis.
you are all wet.
“You think a photon some how knows the temperature of the body that emitted the photon.”
FALSE.
“You think there is no mechanism for the greenhouse effect. This can be modeled as a harmonic oscillator using equations you would have learned if you had taken physics classes after your 3 semester tour.”
FALSE.
“You think a blackbody can magically transform into a reflector.”
FALSE.
“You think the 2nd law prohibits transfer of photons from a cold body to a warm body.”
FALSE.
“You think the Moon doesn’t rotate on [its own] axis.”
TRUE.
bob, you actually got one right (with my correction)!
3 of 4 of those that you claim are false can be gleaned from your diagram of the Green Plate effect.
So either you believe them or your diagram is fake.
Which is it?
I’ll be glad to hear that you believe your diagram is fake, and I’ll await a correct one.
And here is evidence of the fourth and last one
you said the following
“But, especially funny was the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
bob was apparently indoctrinated with the GHE pseudoscience at an early age.”
So you think the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is funny and pseudoscience.
Why do you lie?
Your “gleaning” appears to have been very incompetently done. My guess is you still can’t understand the simple diagram.
Try setting your head to “receive” mode. You appear to be stuck in “block” mode.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
If two identical, large, flat, parallel objects (“plates”) are both at 244 K and have no air between them, then the net transfer of thermal energy (in the for of IR is) …
a) 200 W/m^2 from left plate to right plate
b) 200 W/m^2 from right plate to left plate
c) 200 W/m^2 from top plate to bottom plate
d) 200 W/m^2 from bottom plate to top plate
e) 0 W/m^2 since they are both at the same temperature.
So then I’ll await you correction of my interpretation of your diagram.
So the top green arrow from the green plate is reflected from the blue plate because heat can’t be transferred from cold to hot, and the photons here in the green arrow know this because they know the temperature of the body that emitted them, but the same blue plate has no problem absorbing the photons in the red arrow.
There’s your 3 problems with your diagram.
All wrong and exactly in line with what I posted above.
Tim, whenever I see one of your comments, I know to start looking for a trick.
You’re so tricky!
This time, you omitted the 400 Watts/m^2 incoming.
Very tricky, but you got caught again.
More tricks, please.
bob, your “interpretation” is all messed up.
See if you can understand this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325323
Oh I understand it alright, doesn’t mean it’s not a load of horse manure.
Then obviously you can’t understand it.
No surprise.
JD, I am not necessarily talking about your diagram. All I said is the two plates are 244 K.
I could just as well have said:
“One wall of my office (call it Wall 1) is at 295K. Another wall of my office (Call it Wall 2) is also 295K. How much thermal energy is being transferred from Wall 1 to Wall 2?”
The answer is always “0 W/m^2″ if two objects are at the same temperature. That is what is MEANS to be the same temperature! Since the ‘green plate’ and ‘blue plate’ are the same temperature, then they have no thermal energy transfer (cf ‘Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics)
“Tim, whenever I see one of your comments, I know to start looking for a trick.”
… and whenever I see one of your comments, I know to look for a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.
More tricks from tricky Tim!
He just happened to comment on the “plates” thread, but he wasn’t referring to the plates.
He just happened to mention “plates”. at 244 K, but he wasn’t referring to plates at 244 K.
Funny.
More tricks Tim, PLEASE!
“I know to look for a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.”
Yet, you can’t find any.
Keep looking. But first, you may need to learn some physics.
See, this is what happens when you lie, you can’t keep your stories straight.
In your diagram the blue plate and the green plate are at the same temperature, but in the post you referenced above you state that the green plate is always cooler than the blue plate.
So which is it?
Try telling the truth.
bob, if the two plates were exactly in contact, at equilibrium you would agree that both plates are the same temperature. Hopefully you would agree?
In contact, they are at the same temperature but energy is flowing from the blue plate, to the green plate, and then being emitted to the right. IOW, both plates are at the SAME temperature, yet energy is flowing between them. Hopefully, you are still following?
Now, if the plates are moved 1 micron apart, the plates remain at the same temperature, and energy flows from the blue to the green.
Did I lose you anywhere?
See you are changing the experiment again, but I’ll play along.
Once they are moved apart and there is energy transfer from the blue plate to the green plate, you would now agree that they have to be at different temperatures, green at a lower temperature than blue.
bob, I’m not changing the experiment at all. (If you start the false accusations, that means I win.)
And, I do NOT agree that moving them slightly apart would cause different temperatures. (If you start misrepresenting me, then I win.)
Why would moving them slightly apart cause a temperature change?
Who cares about winning?
I would like to see the correct science, anyway, it’s in a language foreign to you.
The initial problem had the plates separated so putting them in contact changes the game.
I haven’t made any false accusations, and you were the one to start them long ago, do I need to pull any quotes from the beginning of the thread?
In order to get the energy to flow, there has to be both a temperature difference and a physical space difference. A change in temperature with a change in distance.
Basic thermo, of which you have no clue.
bob believes: “In order to get the energy to flow, there has to be both a temperature difference and a physical space difference.”
Sorry bob, you’re wrong. No temperature difference required for radiative heat transfer.
Your “basic thermo” let you down.
And putting the plates together is NOT changing the problem. It is a way to explain how stupid the 262 K result is.
If you start with the plates together, the blue plate is at 244 K. So, you pull them slightly apart and the blue plate goes to 262K?!?!
Riiiiiiiight….
It must be a special feeling, knowing you are the only person on earth who truly understands orbits, relativity, and thermodynamics.
Well thanks, Tim. But, I’m far from being “the only one”.
I’m just light years ahead of clowns that believe a horse is rotating on its own axis, on an oval racetrack.
“But, I’m far from being “the only one”.”
True, Gordon and DREMT are just as wrong as JD believing horses race ass first down the backstretch because race horses don’t rotate on their own axis in turns.
Ball4 seriously, check it out. They’ve helped a lot of addicts.
https://www.addictioncenter.com/treatment/12-step-programs/
I’m encouraged JD has sought out a group to help JD, let us know how it goes JD, maybe you can learn some physics doing proper experiments while under their care.
Nope, JD, again you have outsmarted your self.
Your foolish little diagram does have a heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate hence there must be a temperature difference.
Can you back this stupid statement up with any evidence?
“Sorry bob, you’re wrong. No temperature difference required for radiative heat transfer.”
If the temperatures are the same the heat flows are the same.
Why do you still lie?
boob, in this situation, the radiative heat transfer causes the temperatures.
The only lying might be if someone told you that you understood physics.
But, I’m just guessing….
“But, I’m far from being “the only one”.”
No. you are literally the only one. Quote us EVEN ONE textbook or physics professor in the entire world who agrees with you on
* orbits
* Einstein’s ‘error’
* energy flow in the ‘green plate’ experiment.
You can’t because no one and no book reaches your conclusions.
Instead, you will just say “i’m right”, confirming that you are indeed the only one.
Tim, when you can’t admit that the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis, then you’ve got serious credibility problems. Physics is not about “tricks”.
Clean up your act. Face reality. Learn some physics.
I don’t have to go any further.
Guys,
JD seems to feel that if nature cannot do what he wants, then that’s of no concern because he can just DECLARE it does anyway.
JD’s argument is based on the idea that Facts don’t matter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325351
If that’s the case, then continuing to argue with him is pointless.
If Nate is unable to win a discussion, he resorts to false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Nothing new.
Here you finally get something right
“boob, in this situation, the radiative heat transfer causes the temperatures.”
Not the extra o in my name, but I’m sure you can be more creative than that.
Yes the radiative heat transfer is from left to right, so therefore there must be a temperature gradient from left to right, which is missing from a diagram posted by someone short of a minor in physics who doesn’t understand thermodynamics because he hasn’t studied it at the appropriate level.
So if you think the blue plate is not at 262 as per the rabbet, show your calculation, but it is intuitively obvious that it is not the same temperature as the green plate.
But your intuition fails you as well as your critical thinking skills.
bob, if the plates are together, are they the same temperature?
Use your head for something other than avoiding reality.
JD, depends on how thick you are.
Does 2 layers of insulation keep your house warmer than one?
The side that is being warmed by the incoming radiation will be warmer than the other side.
Or are you just that thick?
JD
Anyway, my argument was not that the plates are at different temperatures when they are together, it is that once you separate them they must come to different temperatures at equilibrium.
Hey why don’t you solve the original problem before you go changing it.
The other hilarious thing is that almost-physics-minor JD has never once attempted to solve this problem by writing down equations and solving.
Instead, he insists the right strategy is guessing an answer based on his weird preconceived notions.
How is it possible that JD got thru 12 SH of physics by using this guessing strategy? Highly implausible.
He has spent the better part of a year trying and failing to solve this one basic heat-transfer HW problem by guessing. And he has never bothered to look up in textbooks or online courses how to solve it or similar problems?
Truly boggles the mind.
Meanwhile solving it correctly and easily was explained to him 47 times.
It should be, by now, clear to all of us that he is utterly hopeless and desperate to seek attention with this ‘unsolved mystery’.
bob and nate, you still don’t have a clue.
Maybe if you keep typing you can change reality.
JDHuffman says:
October 18, 2018 at 3:28 AM
Tim, when you cant admit that the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis, then youve got serious credibility problems. Physics is not about tricks.
___________________________________________
A horse NOT roating round its axis on racecourse, mostly would have to run backward or in crabwalk.
Absolutely amazing!
Another physics PhD….
Nate says:
“A horse NOT roating round its axis on racecourse, mostly would have to run backward or in crabwalk.”
Something tells me Fritz has a PhD in both physics and English.
You can just tell….
We can decide if something is rotating or not rotating:
Not Rotating: Pointed towards some fixed object.
Rotating: Points toward all directions in the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation in succession.
Hint the earth is moving and is not a fixed object.
bob, your conjured-up “definitions” work fine if you love your pseudoscience.
But, if you ever want to face reality, start here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325567
Three are the vectors that describe the motion of the Moon.
They are the velocity vector in the direction of travel, and the acceleration vector which points to the barycenter of the Earth and Moon, and the angular velocity vector which is perpendicular to the other two.
These are the vectors of the Moon, and three is the number of the vectors of the Moon.
2 out of 3 is not bad and it would get you a C in physical chemistry!
If you really want to be pedantic, angular velocity is actually a “pseudovector”.
But, I won’t take off any points. At least you appear to want to move toward reality.
The sooner, the better, huh?
JDHuffman
Time to pull out the BS flag on your statement.
YOUR BS statement: “Here is the correct situation, with both plates at the same temperature of 244 K:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
The “2LoT Denier” situation has the blue plate at a temperature of 262 K! A mysterious, 2LoT-violating, 18 K rise, which is impossible!
Since you are convinced you are correct even though you have clearly been proven wrong by real world experiment (E. Swanson’s plate test in a vacuum condition). Since you reject his real world experiment it is up to you to do your own experiment to prove your declaration is correct.
This is the scientific part of the debate. I like science and will keep it at that. Now you need to keep up your side of science, do a real world experiment to prove your declarations.
Prove two plates, that are separated by a macroscopic distance, will reach the same temperature when only one has an energy input to it on its opposing side.
If you will do such a test you will demonstrate a willingness to actually do real science.
Well Norman, you started off with your usual bravado, but quickly fell flat when all you offered was the bogus experiment. But you got your usual rambling in.
Learn to do a valid experiment. Learn some physics. Get some credibility. Learn to respect reality.
Then you can practice your bravado.
JDHuffman
Ignoring your mindless taunts, back to the basics.
Do an experiment to prove your “Here is the correct situation, with both plates at the same temperature of 244 K:”
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Prove the same temperature will occur in the condition of your link.
Norman, you can NOT do an experiment with black bodies. They are imaginary, like your credibility.
(And if you believe I’m taunting you, just refer back to all the nonsense you have thrown at me. Until you get some credibility, feel as “taunted” as you like.)
JDHuffman
Okay another nonsense taunt. I will again ignore it and point out, blackbodies do not exist in nature but you can find materials that are very close to black (at least for IR which is the band the experiment is concerned with).
Use a material that is about 99% an IR blackbody and you will have a variation from the theory by 1%. That should be good enough to show the condition of the plates.
Again why do you feel E. Swanson’s experiment is bogus? Earlier you pointed out he did not get data on fluxes. That would not make the experiment bogus. What is your proof that E. Swanson’s experiment is bogus?
Norman, in REAL science, you do not figure out some technique to prove your belief. I watched this “experiment” develop, and that is what happened. You believed it even before it was performed. It was never done correctly. The results were not meaningful. But yet you swallowed it whole.
That ain’t science.
First, as the postimg shows, the correct situation is both plates would be at the same temperature. This is easy to figure out, just from an understanding of everyday experiences with heat flow. If the plates are in contact, at equilibrium, and then separated by only the slightest amount, it would NOT cause the blue plate to soar to a higher temperature. How could It?
And, if you understood the relevant physics, it would be even clearer.
In any experiment that is attempting to verify radiative fluxes, then the radiative fluxes need to be measured. If the experiment were done properly, and all fluxes and temperatures identified, you would not find anything unusual.
JDHuffman
I do not believe you have explained why E. Swanson vacuum experiment with two plates (one directly heated, the other not) is bogus.
You conjecture he set up the experiment to prove a belief is not a valid argument in concluding the experiment is bogus.
You have not demonstrated in any way that two plates with separation would reach the same steady state temperature. E. Swanson’s test proves they do not and you have supplied no evidence to date to show his test is wrong.
His experiment was not attempting to verify radiative fluxes. His sole goal was to show that an object, heated by a hotter object will cause the heated hotter object to increase in steady state temperature. His test clearly shows this to be the case. Your demanding more information or data collection would not change this reality at all.
Well there you have it, Norman.
You don’t need any facts to support your belief system.
I do science a little differently….
JDHuffman
YOU: “If the plates are in contact, at equilibrium, and then separated by only the slightest amount, it would NOT cause the blue plate to soar to a higher temperature. How could It?”
Since you asked. While in contact with the green plate the blue plate is radiatively losing 200 watts from the side facing the energy source (via surface emission) and losing the other 200 watts conducting it to the green plate (that equals the 400 input watts). Once the blue plate is separated from the green plate it will conduct zero energy to the green plate. It will only lose energy via radiant emission. At first separation it will emit 200 watts of energy to the green plate keeping the same temperature. The green plate will initially radiate 200 watts to the blue plate and 200 watts away. Since it is only receiving 200 total watts from the blue plate it will start to cool (radiating more energy than it is receiving).
The 200 watts it starts sending to the blue plate causes the blue plate to warm. The blue plate is receiving 400 watts from some external source. It must radiate away 400 watts. On the side facing the green plate it radiates away initially (before it warms) 200 watts. But it is also receiving 200 watts from the green plate so its net energy loss on this side is zero watts. It is effectively only losing 200 watts from the 400 watt source so it starts to heat up and continues to do so until it is emitting 400 total watts of energy. All makes sense in correct physics. All valid physics textbooks will support this solution. E. Swanson’s test verifies this is exactly what is going on.
You need to think of the possibility that you are the one that is wrong and not the entire scientific community which has years of actual working systems that follow this physics.
If my thinking was against all science and I see experiments that prove my thinking wrong, I think I would try to accept the real possibility that I got something wrong and try to evaluate. If you think that all science of heat transfer is wrong (including Clausius himself) and your view is correct, it would be up to you to perform repeatable experiments and submit them to the scientific community.
Telling bloggers or PhD physics majors (Tim Folkerts, David Appell) that they are wrong or clowns is not a convincing method of changing the scientific community. You need to do some serious testing to show your conclusions are valid.
Set up two plates in vacuum conditions (as E. Swanson has done). Have one heated on a side with a heat lamp and the other unheated. Have the two plates start together and have them reach the same equilibrium temperature. Move the “green” (unheated) plate away from the heated “blue” plate and record the temperatures. If you can demonstrate that the two plates remain at the same temperature I will strongly consider your linked post to your interpretation of fluxes. Until then you are just offering an opinion and making unproven declarations.
Thanks Norman, I laughed all the way though it. Unfortunately, the actual science is not as funny, but here goes anyway:
When separated, the blue plate is emitting 200 each direction, because it has to get rid of 400. The green plate receives that 200, but can only get rid of it from one side. So the blue plate and green plate are both emitting 200 Watts/m^2, which means they are both at 244 K.
And I especially enjoyed your “lecture” about who was wrong. That’s always funny from someone that believes the horse is rotating on its own axis!
JDHuffman
You can continue to laugh but it does nothing at all to support your declarations. You make statements but you offer no proof.
I am asking you to be scientific, provide proof of your declarations. Do an experiment as suggested.
What will you do when you find out you were wrong? This will occur if you ever get around to doing an actual experiment. You start with two plates touching in a vacuum. One is heated by an external radiant source the other is not. When you move them apart you will find the heated plate temperature will start to rise and the nonheated plate will start to cool until they reach new steady state temperatures. Do the test and see what happens.
Your statement: “The green plate receives that 200, but can only get rid of it from one side. So the blue plate and green plate are both emitting 200 Watts/m^2, which means they are both at 244 K.”
This condition will exist when the two are first moved apart (as I had stated above). But as time advances this state will no longer exist. The blue plate will increase in temperature and emit more energy than the green plate.
Norman, this is where you bog down, every time. You just can’t understand the physics. You run to “established pseudoscience”, your brain stops, and you start banging on the keyboard.
What’s wrong with actually thinking for yourself? What’s wrong with using your head? Clear your head of all the pseudoscience you’ve been exposed to. Use whatever is left of your “common sense”.
Look at your own words: But as time advances this state will no longer exist. The blue plate will increase in temperature and emit more energy than the green plate.”
This is at the instant the plates are separated. Do you really believe the green plate will start warming the blue plate? How could that happen? In your life, have you ever separated two objects and one had its temperature raised? The blue plate is going to continue emitting, just as before. And the green plate will absorb all the flux from the “upstream” source. The simple solution is correct. The pseudoscience solution is WRONG.
Learn to think for yourself, even if you never learn any physics.
Norman does not bog down JD, you and your bogus cartoon bog down.
“Do you really believe the green plate will start warming the blue plate?”
That’s what proper experiment demonstrates. Try it.
“How could that happen?”
By correctly understanding the physics of radiative energy transfer hard won by experiment.
“In your life, have you ever separated two objects and one had its temperature raised?”
Sure. Separating the ice pack from my beer makes it warm up on summer days at my location. What do you know: a cooler object warmed some other object.
“The blue plate is going to continue emitting, just as before.”
In higher amount from a warmer equilibrium temperature after the green plate is introduced.
“And the green plate will absorb all the flux from the “upstream” source.”
Yes, JD gets that right but only in the thought experiment not real life.
Learn to experiment for yourself JD, even if you never learn any physics. Experiments will teach JD some physics where JD’s cartoon is bogus showing a reflecting black body.
JDHuffman
Calling established physics “established pseudoscience” does not make it a reality.
As I have stated, if you actually would do an experiment you would see a heated plate will warm up if you reduce the amount of energy it can lose. With the two plates together, the blue plate loses lots of energy via conduction. When the plates are separated this heat exchange process no longer exists in vacuum conditions.
E. Swanson’s test is the condition of the blue plate and green plate separated. The two are not touching.
The first logical thought process you can use is to think that two states, one where the blue and green plate were touching and moved apart and the other where the blue and green plate were never together but are in the same positions as the first case. The outcome is identical.
Look at the results. In E. Swanson experiment he moved the green plate up to the blue plate. He could have just as easily moved the green plate away from touching the blue plate, the final positions are identical and the effects would be identical.
Here:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Norman, JD will not care to look at the results of experiments, JD will only look at JD’s bogus cartoon. JD needs to learn some physics by doing proper experiments.
“When the plates are separated this heat exchange process no longer exists in vacuum conditions.”
DUH!
Norm, you still are not seeking reality. Separating the plates does not restrict radiative heat transfer! The blue plate would still be emitting 200 Watts/m^2, just as the green plate had been.
You just refuse reality.
“The blue plate would still be emitting 200 Watts/m^2, just as the green plate had been.”
Not at equilibrium JD, you just haven’t done the experiment to find out the equlibrium reality is different than your bogus cartoon.
Sorry Ball4, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I thought you were a bug.
Here’s what you’re referring to. If you have any question, let me know.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
Read Ball4’s post without rejecting it. He is correct.
When you first separate the blue and green plate they would both be emitting 200 Watts/m^2. I do agree with you on that initial state.
This state would not persist. E. Swanson continued his experiment until temperatures no longer changed (equilibrium or steady state conditions). The blue plate would increase in temperature. It is receiving 400 watts of energy, both sides of the blue plate will emit 200 watts but the side of the blue plate facing the green plate will also absorb 200 watts from the green plate. Initially it will not lose any energy from that side. This will cause its temperature to rise. The green plate only receives 200 watts from the blue plate. It is emitting 400 watts total. This causes it to cool. As Ball4 points out, the process continues…blue plate warming, green plate cooling until a new steady state is reached. Blue plate ends hotter, green plate ends cooler. Exactly what you can easily see in E. Swanson’s test. As Ball4 states correctly, it is exactly what you would find if you actually did any experiments.
No one is able to convince you otherwise. You are unwilling to accept the possibility you are wrong and you will not do any experiments on your own. IF someone does an experiment you will not accept the results. That sounds like a very closed position to me.
Norman, sometimes I can sort through all your incoherent rambling, but other times it is impossible. This one is the latter.
All I got out of it was your infatuation with Ball4 and E.Swanson.
“Read Ball4’s post without rejecting it. He is correct.”
“E. Swanson continued his experiment…”
“As Ball4 points out…”
“Exactly what you can easily see in E. Swanson’s test.”
“As Ball4 states correctly…”
Norman, when you go in for your next therapy session, be sure and take a copy of this with you. It will help your therapist.
JDHuffman
I will continue in my efforts to ignore your insulting, derogatory comments.
Since you missed the meat of my post. I will simplify again.
Do an actual experiment. That should be easy for you to digest.
Norman, do a simplified version of the experiment yourself.
Hold a metal plate against an incandescent lightbulb. Once equilibrium has been reached, pull the plate away. Did the temperature of the lightbulb go up?
Reality–it’s out there. Seek it.
JDHuffman
The test you describe would not be conclusive. If you want to determine just radiative effects you need a good vacuum.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
When E. Swanson removed the air the temperature went up considerably for the heated blue plate. He removed both convection and conduction with the air in the jar. With your light, you would not eliminate heat loss from convection as you removed the plate.
The plate is removing heat from the bulb by conduction but where it is in contact with the bulb, no air is moving by to remove heat. When you move the plate away you now have a new mechanism (convection) removing heat from the bulb surface.
The E. Swanson test shows this amount to considerable and it would certainly taint any conclusion you could form about the bulb and plate. In a vacuum you would have the answer.
Norman, that “experiment” is pure pseudoscience. It is not even real. There are no flow rates. It is all your imagination. You want it to be real, so you imagine it is real.
That ain’t science.
Now, see if you can type the same things over and over, hoping it will change reality.
And, then look up Einstein’s definition of “insanity”.
That’s one quote from Einstein that’s not so good.
There are some things I have done a thousand or more like ten thousand times before I was really satisfied, and then I always thought there was still room for improvement.
bob, we already know that you and Eli are pals. Sounds like Nate might be too. Are you guys just here to defend him pro bono, or is there some money in it?
Yeah, Eli pays me.
What you think I do this for free?
You want to get in on the payola?
But seriously, it’s just a homework problem, anyone can chime in on whether JD has a valid solution or not.
But if I thought I had something right and Eli had it wrong, I would check my work 107 times.
Now there’s a reason I picked 107.
Oh, so you two are like Eli’s toadies then, basically.
Well the dozen or so people who read this blog can see what you are DREMT.
Yes, the person who has identified that you and Nate are Eli’s toadies. Get toadying!
DREMT,
The thing about science is that people all over the world, who’ve never met, can agree on an answer to a basic science question. What is the speed of light? What is the mass of the Earth? Etc.
Eli solved an extremely simple heat-transfer homework problem. I solved it too, as did many other students over decades, and shockingly, we get the same answer as Eli!
That’s the extent of the relationship. We concur on basic physics. We agree that facts matter.
Meanwhile JD the almost-physics-minor has spent a year hand-waving, flailing, and failing to solve or understand this basic physics homework problem, and not even bothering to look up in textbooks how to solve it.
Explain that.
Why support such a loser?
Except you didn’t “solve” it, Nate. You perverted physics to fit your false religion.
Your false “solution” has the blue plate at 262 K, with only 400 Watts/m^2 incoming. The real solution has it at 244 K. You can’t explain how you get an extra 18 K from nowhere.
If the blue plate were alone, the 400 incoming would establish an equilibrium temperature of 244K. Bringing in another perfect black body would not be able to raise that temperature. You would need either insulation, or another heat source.
JD, you have to face reality sometime,
Any matter can be an insulator, in this case a plate of some finite mass and thickness, that’s what the experiment calls for.
The blackbody reduces the cooling of the blue plate, hence making it warmer.
It is almost that simple.
You have made it abundantly clear that facts are disposable, like when your ‘solution’ requires a black-body to reflect light.
Then you claim people are misrepresenting you. Nope.
I don’t know if you meet the textbook definition of insane, but reality and you have long since departed ways, JD.
bob appears to now be seeing some light.
“Any matter can be an insulator…”
He seems to be starting to understand that the green plate must be an insulator, to ever get the 262K.
Of course, he doesn’t realize that that realization pulls the plug on the GPE nonsense.
And Nate, well is just Nate. What else is there to say?
JD,
So you are admitting that the green plate acts as an insulator and causes the blue plate to increase in temperature?
Good
Exactly bob!
The green plate has to magically become an insulator, instead of an imaginary black body that “absorbs all incoming flux”.
And that then destroys the nonsense about the plates “proving” the GHE.
You’re learning!
Is both at the same time, no magic necessary, you would understand that if you had the proper physics training.
But sadly no, no physics training, the dog ate your homework and you failed.
No bob, a hypothetical black body can NOT also be an insulator.
You’re regressing.
You seem to make a step forward, and then a step backward.
Your degree is not a BA from a place that no longer offers that degree, is it?
JD, you say
“No bob, a hypothetical black body can NOT also be an insulator”
Sez who?
Got any cite for that gibberish?
Anyhow, I have a BS from a Liberal Arts College that is ranked in the top 10 for Chemistry, from which I have the BS in Science and Letters.
And yes, they still award that degree.
bob, at least you have a BS degree. The only college ranking that means anything is the average starting salary of graduates. Anything else is the other “BS”.
A hypothetical black body is defined to accept all incoming flux. That is the hypothetical black body used in the plates hoax.
If you now want to claim a black body is also an insulator, I have no problem. Especially since that new definition ruins the agenda of the plates hoax!
Apparently a BS is more science training than you possess, the lack of support you provide for your arguments indicate you have less than an ideal science background.
How exactly does a black-body being an insulator invalidate the green plate effect? Or the Greenhouse effect for that matter.
You have some splaining to do!
You know insulators also emit and absorb radiation.
But then you don’t answer other posters questions or explain your thinking, its all just how full of it you are.
Try the green plate problem again and this time show your work or you lose.
After all you are just a loser troll.
Also I note that you didn’t provide a cite for your black-bodies can’t be insulators gibberish.
Got any?
Nope, didn’t think so.
You couldn’t make a scientific argument to get out of a wet paper bag!
bob, do you know any of the relevant physics? You don’t seem to know anything. You’re always asking beginner-type questions.
You’re always quick to respond, so let’s see if you can work a simple black body problem.
The blue plate is alone in space, and irradiated by 750 Watts/m^2. What is its equilibrium temperature?
The clock is ticking….
Now Quid pro Quo, I just watched Silence of the Lambs.
What is the difference between a black-body and an insulator and how does that difference invalidate the green plate problem or the greenhouse effect?
Time for you to show you know some beginner type physics.
And the following are facts
The moon rotates on its axis
The laws of thermodynamics do not prevent transfer of heat or energy or whatever from cold to hot.
Tick Tock
or better yet
Julie Andrews says “Spit Spot”
No bob, there was no mention of “new”. I specifically referred to the “blue plate”. I just wanted to verify, again, that you had no understanding of the physics.
If you add the green plate, then you get the same basic results as before. Both blue and green plates achieve the same temperature, 285 K (at the 750 Watts/m^2 incoming).
The plates achieve the same temperature at equilibrium only in JD’s imaginary world where black bodies reflect all incident light, horses run ass first down the backstretch because they do not rotate on their own axis and proper experimental results are not science.
Fluffball cannot understand that the plates achieve the same temperature at equilibrium because black bodies can not be heated by colder black bodies, as confirmed by countless textbooks. Fluffball cannot understand that horses do not run backwards on a racetrack, as demonstrated by countless experiments.
339
Wrong.
The correct answer is 285 K.
You have failed several tests. You are clueless about physics and thermo. But all you can do is attack me.
You’re a clown.
Why did you divide by 2?
please explain
The blue plate has two sides. At equilibrium, it emits 375 Watts/m^2 from each.
Yes, but you didn’t specify that in your quiz!
You said it was illuminated by 750 watts per meter squared, you didn’t specify it was only to one side.
Pose better problems.
You couldn’t solve the problem.
Now you have to come up with excuses.
The truth is you don’t understand the relevant physics. But you believe you do. And you won’t learn.
That’s why you’re a clown.
Well I knew it was a no win gambit.
The fact that you didn’t properly specify the problem is not my problem but yours.
I solved the problem correctly for a plate illuminated by 750 watts per square meter from all sides, you didn’t specify that it was illuminated from one side only.
In fact your problem stated it was illuminated by 750 watts per square meter, so that means all sides.
You don’t write too clearly do you?
How many sides of the blue plate are receiving flux in the original problem, clown?
Why would you change the problem, clown?
How many more excuses do you need to cover your incompetence, clown?
Why do you hate reality, clown?
You stated it as a new problem, not the original problem with new numbers.
Lets get past that, and add the green plate and do the calculation to see if the blue plate gets hotter.
Or we can go back to the errors in your chart, or you can make up a new one with the new numbers.
What’s it gonna be?
What it’s gonna be is that you incessantly go on missing the point until the other person gives up. And that’s all part of the toadying.
OK bob.
(Comment ended up in the wrong place!)
No bob, there was no mention of “new”. I specifically referred to the “blue plate” I just wanted to verify, again, that you had no understanding of the physics.
If you add the green plate, then you get the same basic results as before. Both blue and green plates achieve the same temperature, 285 K (at the 750 Watts/m^2 incoming).
Ok, you didn’t mention new, in fact this is what you said
“You’re always quick to respond, so let’s see if you can work a simple black body problem.”
And these were the conditions with no reference to Eli’s problem
“The blue plate is alone in space, and irradiated by 750 Watts/m^2. What is its equilibrium temperature?”
You neglected to fully set the conditions such that the solution is unique.
Your lack of skill doesn’t confront me.
I solved the problem for a rotating plate, you did not specify that the plate was not rotating.
Now you add the green plate and get the nonsense result that the plates are at the same temperature.
Wrong
Yes bob, you solved the wrong problem.
Blaming others for your failures won’t work, in reality….
Actually JD,
Reality has set in and you are not match for me when it comes to thermodynamics.
You can’t assign a proper homework problem without having multiple valid solutions to your question.
If you reread your own posts, you might see that, but your mind is rusted shut.
You don’t know thermo, you don’t know orbital mechanics, all you got is nuttin honey!
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 3:15 AM
As promised, below is the list of “2LoT Deniers”. These commenters believe that the black body (green plate) can raise the temperature of the blue plate.
__________________________________
They dont “believe” anything.
They and everyone else who ever saw a school from inside “knows” for sure, that each additional energyinput will rise the equilibrium-temperature of a body. No matter where this input comes from.
If not, THAT would violate physical laws. Because energy cant just disapear.
Fritz hilariously BELIEVES: “…each additional energy input will rise the equilibrium-temperature of a body. No matter where this input comes from.”
Fritz, when you bring a block of ice into your toasty-warm school room, you are adding energy. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2.
So how much will 10 square meters of ice raise the temperature of a room already at 24 °C?
Do you want to be added to the “2LoT Deniers” list? (There are no dues.)
And, before I forget, learn some physics.
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 12:10 PM
Fritz hilariously BELIEVES: “…each additional energy input will rise the equilibrium-temperature of a body. No matter where this input comes from.”
______________________________________
No, he doesnt “believe”,- he knows.
Yeah Fritz, I don’t believe you know, either.
That’s why you were unable to answer my question.
But, hopefully you learned something. Just adding energy to a system does not mean the system temperature will rise.
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM
Yeah Fritz, I don’t believe you know, either.
That’s why you were unable to answer my question.
_______________________________________________
Yes, I know that energy doesnt disappear. But what about you?
The answer to your sensless and stupid question is: Exactly 0.0°C.
A square meter is infinitely thin and therefore its effect on airtemperature is infinitely small.
But if you want to know the change of temperature through a CUBIC meter of ice, first look for specific heat capacity of ice and water and air.
Calculation you have to do youself. Im not your calculator and for you its a good training.
You will need it in school some day.
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM
Just adding energy to a system does not mean the system temperature will rise.
___________________________________________
Just adding energy and only energy, not together with some colder matter, what else does it mean if not rising temperature?
If back-radiation from atmosphere wouldnt raise temperature, radiation from sun also wouldnt, and earth soon would be frozen.
Fritz says: “If back-radiation from atmosphere wouldn’t raise temperature, radiation from sun also wouldn’t, and earth soon would be frozen.”
Fritz, you have been sadly misinformed. Where did you learn such nonsense? Is it too late to get your money back?
JDHuffman says:
October 17, 2018 at 8:13 PM
Fritz says: If back-radiation from atmosphere wouldnt raise temperature, radiation from sun also wouldnt, and earth soon would be frozen.
Fritz, you have been sadly misinformed
_________________________________________
Inform me right.
-Whats the differenece between radiation from sun and radiation from somewhere else?
-Why can the one from sun raise temperature and the other one not?
-What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?
Fritz Kraut says:
October 17, 2018 at 7:23 PM
Yes, I know that energy doesnt disappear. But what about you?
_________________________________________________
Still no answer to this simple question.
Do you know or not?
–Inform me right.
-Whats the differenece between radiation from sun and radiation from somewhere else?–
Sun has direct sunlight.
The radiation from say fire, is from a lower temperature source and is not directed light.
So if have a fire and you are distance from fire which has apparent size of the sun, less energy from fire will reach you via radiant energy as compared to sunlight.
The only radiation energy warming earth is the sunlight, and the amount sunlight which warms the entire Earth is a vast amount of energy.
—Why can the one from sun raise temperature and the other one not? —
When sunlight is about 1000 watts per square meter- clear skies and sun near zenith, it can warm a surface to about 80 C.
Due to convectional heat loss [cooler air will have more heat loss] the ground can be warmed to 60 to 70 C [clear skies and sun near zenith].
—What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?–
A ground shaded from sunlight doesn’t get very warm, instead it will around the temperature of the air, and highest air temperature on Earth are around 50 C.
gbaikie says:
October 18, 2018 at 1:36 AM
Fritz asks:
“What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?”
A ground shaded from sunlight doesnt get very warm, instead it will around the temperature of the air, and highest air temperature on Earth are around 50 C.
_______________________________________________
Yes, you are completely right: A shade will reduce temperature an doesnt increase it. Well observed.
BUT THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION.
Yes, you are completely right: A shade will reduce temperature an doesnt increase it. Well observed.
BUT THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION.
So: “What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?”
So what makes the warmed air, cool down again?
That is a good question.
If take something out of the refrigerator, the room temperature will warm the object, until it’s at room air temperature.
Land surface cool quickly at night and would cool quicker without a warmer atmosphere which is cooled and as land cools.
Some think much of earth atmosphere is cooled by CO2 molecules radiating at higher elevations. So air would be cooled by exciting the CO2 molecules. A problem is there is not much air or CO2 molecules at higher elevation, but some think this a large mechanism of cooling Earth.
So point Ir thermometer at wooden fence and it say it’s 44 F or 6.2 C and dirt on ground is 39 F and air temperature about 45 F, And time is about 11:30 pm. And might cooled 1 F per hour after sundown. But it probably will not freeze tonite. And with less atmosphere say 1/2 atm instead of 1 atm the ground and fence would cool at faster rate because there is less warmed air [5 tons rather than 10 tons per square meter].
Of course with water it cools slower than dirt and would not cool the air above it as much as dirt would.
Oh, and couple inches below the dirt surface, and dirt is few degrees [F] warmer- one of reasons it shouldn’t freeze tonight.
gbaikie says:
October 19, 2018 at 12:44 AM
Fritz says: “Yes, you are completely right: A shade will reduce temperature an doesnt increase it. Well observed.
BUT THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION.
So: What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?”
gbaikie says: So what makes the warmed air, cool down again?
That is a good question.
___________________________________________
If good or stupid-a question is no answer to my question.
Also not the long text you wrote about your refrigerator or your opinion what some people might think and so on….
Please tell me in concrete sentences what the fuck happens with the energy, radiated from atmosphere to ground, if it doesnt warm the ground.
I would simplify my simple question, but its already as simple as possible.
Now Fritz, there’s no need for that kind of language. I expect Bindidolina will soon be here to tell you that sort of talk would not be tolerated at WUWT or Climate etc, and that you would be banned within a day or so if you carried on like that over there.
Also, you realize that Bindidolina is actually German, and that your name “Fritz Kraut” and pretend inability to be able to speak English must be quite offensive to it?
“Please tell me in concrete sentences what the fuck happens with the energy, radiated from atmosphere to ground, if it doesnt warm the ground.”
Well it’s sort of like saying what happens with energy of a cold ceiling in terms of warming the floor.
Even if ceiling is a bit warmer than floor [which is tends to be in a heated house]- but most of atmosphere is quite cold.
Though ozone is part of atmosphere, as is the blue of the blue sky.
Clouds can keep nights warmer- clouds are part of atmosphere.
You have direct sunlight, indirect sunlight [or diffused sunlight] and have re-radiated sunlight. In terms warming the ground, it requires direct sunlight.
A lightbulb hundred feet above the ground is not going to warm the ground. A hundred lightbulbs 1000 feet above the ground is not going to heat the ground. The rather intense light from such lightbulbs will illumination the ground. They also blind IR sensors pointed at them. If you focused the light of such lightbulbs, maybe they could heat the ground- but in that case that would be kind of vaguely similar to direct sunlight.
A crowd and/or a spotlight could make you sweat.
And concrete question might be where is most [or say a 1/4 or more] of this energy from atmosphere coming from – within 50 feet of ground or 1000 feet or more than 1000 meters from the ground?
gbaikie says:
October 19, 2018 at 9:25 PM
Fritz aks:“Please tell me in concrete sentences what the fuck happens with the energy, radiated from atmosphere to ground, if it doesnt warm the ground.”
gbaiki answers:
Well it’s sort of like saying what happens…
Even if ceiling is a bit warmer than floor…
Though ozone is part of atmosphere…
Clouds can keep nights warmer…
You have direct sunlight, indirect sunlight…
A lightbulb hundred feet above the ground is not going to warm the ground….
_____________________________________________________
@gbaikie Everything you are teeling me is very interesting….
But what happens to the energy which is radiated from atmosphere to the gound, if it doesnt warm the ground?
Dont you understand my poor englisch, or have you just no idea or dont you like to admit that indeed THIS RADIATION IS WARMING THE GROUND and therefore GHE EXISTS?
Please tell me honestly, without anymore nerving circumlocution.
“@gbaikie Everything you are teeling me is very interesting….
But what happens to the energy which is radiated from atmosphere to the gound, if it doesnt warm the ground?
Dont you understand my poor englisch, or have you just no idea or dont you like to admit that indeed THIS RADIATION IS WARMING THE GROUND and therefore GHE EXISTS?”
Warming or not warming the ground has very little to do with whether GHE exist.
Rather one could say the focus is surface air temperature- and that is what is measured in terms saying Earth average temperature is 15 C.
The News saying today high temperature today is X, is the air temperature measured in the shaded of special white box which 5 feet above the ground and in a natural terrain. Or not “supposed” measured in a parking lot or say on a roof [though such rules are not followed].
Does anyone know what average global ground temperature is.
The average global ground/land air surface temperature is about 10 C.
The ground temperature in sunlight can reach 70 C [158 F] and obviously ground temperature shaded is different.
In terms of global temperature it’s mainly ocean surface temperature which global average of the liquid water is about 17 C.
The average global ocean temperature is strongly affected the tropical ocean surface temperature which is very large area and has average temperature of about 26 C and ocean surface outside tropics is about 11 C.
The global land air surface temperature also strongly effected by tropical land area- if average tropics and cold land area like Antarctica and Greenland [which are small regions compared all tropical land area, it nullifies such very cold regions].
Tropics is 40% of surface of planet. Tropical land is about 20% of tropics. 510 million square km is total global area, 40% of 510 is 204 million square km, and 20% of 204 is 40.8 million square km of tropical land area. And land area of Antarctica is about 14 million. And entire land area is about 30% of 510, 153 million square km. Or you could leaving out tropics and antarctic one has almost about 2/3rd of rest of world land area to consider and cause the average to about 10 C. Europe is about 9 C as is China though small part China is in tropics unlike Europe [Europe is warmed by the Gulf stream].
Anyhow ocean surface temperature is why Earth average temperature is 15 C. And tropical ocean is heat engine of the entire world.
As said: Warming or not warming the ground has very little to do with whether GHE exist.
But you ask:
THIS RADIATION IS WARMING THE GROUND and therefore GHE EXISTS?
Roughly only direct sunlight warms the ground.
An actual greenhouse or parked car with windows rolled up, can cause “the ground” to warm to 80 C- but this has to be with inhibting convectional heat loss. It not about radiant effect.
Also water under the surface of solar pond can reach 80 C- again it’s about inhibting convectional heat loss.
If you increase the air temperature this creates less difference between a sun heated surface and the air and with less difference there is less convectional heat. Or the larger the difference of air temperature [cold air vs warm ground/surface] the the greater the transfer of heat from warm surface to cooler air.
Or to get a ground temperature of 70 C, you fairly warm air, and clear skies and sun near zenith [when/where you get the most direct sunlight- about 1000 watts per square meter]
So clear day and sun near zenith [sun directly overhead] you get about 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight.
Wiki, sunlight:
” If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the EarthSun distance is 1 astronomical unit), then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2″
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Wiki,Greenhouse effect:
“…The term “greenhouse effect” arose from a faulty analogy with the effect of sunlight passing through glass and warming a greenhouse. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works mostly by reducing airflow so that warm air is kept inside.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
As finally note, the ocean absorb both direct and indirect sunlight.
Most people don’t understand this.
gbaikie says:
October 20, 2018 at 1:51 PM
“As said: Warming or not warming the ground has very little to do with whether GHE exist.”
______________________________________
Oh, it has very much to do with it; its crucial. Because warming by this backradiation from atmosphere IS GHE.
Only if backradiation wouldnt warm the ground, GHE could be seriously denied.
gbaikie says:
But you ask:
THIS RADIATION IS WARMING THE GROUND and therefore GHE EXISTS?
Roughly only direct sunlight warms the ground.
____________________________________________
OK. Disappointedly I take notice you still insist on your credo.
Your explanation, what else happens with the energy of this backradiation, is still missing.
That would have been most interesting to me.
gbaikie says:
October 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM
“As finally note, the ocean absorb both direct and indirect sunlight.
Most people dont understand this.”
______________________________________________
I really cant imagine anyone doesnt understand it.
Everything with exception of a mirror absorbs all kinds of radiation. And even this a little bit.
gbaikie says:
October 18, 2018 at 1:36 AM
When sunlight is about 1000 watts per square meter- clear skies and sun near zenith, it can warm a surface to about 80 C.
_______________________________________________________
…and when radiation is reduced by a shade to 900 Watt/square meter – does it warm less or more or equal?
and when you increase radiation by an additional source of radiation of 100 Watt/square meter to 1100 Watt/square meter – does it warm less or more or equal?
If you found the solution, you have overcome your thinking blockade about Law of Thermodynamik and GHE.
Ugggh. More attention seeking from the troll
Your jealousy is apparent, anonymous clown.
JD, the almost-minor-in-physics who somehow failed to learn that a black body cannot be a mirror.
Never learned that momentum and force can’t be summed.
Thinks a force is not a force until it is ‘set free’.
Never learned spinning things keep spinning without a torque.
Who thinks ignorance is the way to fame and fortune.
Some great misrepresentations and false accusations there, Nate.
But, ZERO reality….
All stated by you. Let’s remind you of one of your finer dotard moments and how you then blame your errors on others:
Wiki:
Black body: “A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
JD “No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
Bob:”Since it is a black-body thought experiment, the rules are that each plate absorbs all the radiation that hits it. So the blue plate absorbs the red arrow as well as the green arrow”
JD “you do this while accusing me of changing the properties of the blue plate.”
No errors on my part.
I do blame others for their errors.
(And Nate, if you want to have an honest discussion here, you will NOT be allowed to use your usual tricks.)
“No errors on my part.”
This makes clear than, as usual, any discussion with you will not be FACT-based.
FACT examples:
11 > 7.
A black body cannot reflect light of any frequency
THE plates in the GPE are black bodies.
Your statement “the blue plate reflects the 200 from green” does not agree with the FACTS.
It is therefore FALSE.
Until you can accept these basic facts. IE accept reality. Discussion with you is pointless as having such a discussion with my cat.
A black body is an imaginary device. By “definition”, it absorbs all arriving flux. It is a practical way to illustrate complex issues. It’s similar to solving a problem about a falling object by eliminating air friction. That does not allow you to eliminate air friction from aircraft design.
And, it does not mean you get to violate the laws of physics to spread a false religion.
The blue plate will reflect the flux from the cooler green plate. The green plate will always be at a lower temperature, due to the energy flow. As long as both plates are ideal black bodies, and with the given energy flow, the green plate will NEVER warm the blue plate.
In the incorrect version (blue plate at 262 K), the green plate is no longer an ideal black body. It must “transform” into some type of insulator that only allows 133.33 Watts to flow from the system, thus forcing the blue plate to increase in temperature.
If the green plate were a perfect insulator, letting NO energy escape, then you could expect the blue plate to reach an equilibrium temperature of 290 K, emitting 400 Watts/m^2 only to the left.
JD,
This is a hw or a quiz problem with certain given conditions. In the GPE problem the givens are that the plates are BB. BB have the property that they DO NOT reflect. Look, its in the chapter!
If your solution to the problem requires that one or more of the givens are NOT satisfied, then its wrong. You cannot just change the givens just cuz you feel like it.
“The blue plate will reflect the flux from the cooler green plate.”
DOES NOT SATISFY THE GIVEN CONDITION
that the plates are black bodies. A black body CANNOT REFLECT.
You got the problem wrong.
You can argue with the teacher about 2LOT or whatever, but in the end you are still going to be counted wrong, because it is wrong.
Your choice is to move on and get over it, or drop the class.
Problem #1 with all that Nate, is that you’re violating 2LoT.
Problem #2, is your “redefining” of the green plate is worse than your accusations about the blue plate. You are making the green plate into some type of magic insulator. A black body would ALWAYS accept all radiation from the hotter blue plate. It would NOT be reflecting any back. And, it would not reduce its emission from 200 Watts/m^2, in full contact. THAT’s a BIG problem.
We’ll just stop at 2 problems.
You’ll deny reality anyway….
“Problem #1 with all that Nate, is that you’re violating 2LoT.”\
Thats your opinion. Not a fact.
While, a black body cannot REFLECT is a fact, not my opinion.
You can’t change the given facts in a problem to force it to match your desired answer. That is not allowed.
Stop trying to make black bodies do what they CANNOT DO.
You got the problem wrong. Get over it. Move on. Or drop the class.
“You are making the green plate into some type of magic insulator.” ??? No, not at all.
Nate, since you are behaving, I will continue.
We have two disagreements, identified above as problems #1 and #2.
In #1, you do not believe the 262 K version violates 2LoT. Well, how does the green plate able to raise the blue plate from 244 K to 262 K? It either has to be a “heat source” or an insulator to do that.
In #2, why is the green plate suddenly unable to emit 200 Watts/m^2. It would be doing that in full contact with the blue plate. Why suddenly is it no longer able to emit 200?
What you think that kid Eli did wrong is just a distraction at the moment.
The problem that you have to deal with first is that your solution does not work.
You must agree what conditions we need to satisfy. The plates are black bodies, and cannot reflect flux at all. That is a requirement of the correct solution.
Yes/no?
Now Nate, don’t start misbehaving. We’re working on the two problems. Don’t start distracting. Deal with two problems.
Otherwise it appears you are throwing up smoke.
I believe the problem that raised came up first.
If we can’t agree on the basic requirements that the correct solution must meet, then there is not much to discuss.
Arrgh
‘Problem that I raised’
Yeah, if you can’t stay on a logical path, then we can quit.
Hilarious, JD.
We were trying establish the facts about black bodies, and what they can and cannot do in the GPE problem.
AFAIK, we never came to any agreement on that critical issue. Did we?
You ducked answering that it seems, by raising other issues. Thats where we were in the logical path.
Nate, I don’t believe I “ducked” anything. I have been patiently explaining the physics to you. I will give you one more chance.
What question/issue do you feel I “ducked”?
JD,
The issue is that the Blue plate, since it is a black body, cannot reflect radiation.
Your diagram, showing it reflecting 200 W/m^2 coming from the Green plate, cannot be correct.
If you still believe the diagram, you need to be able to explain this contradiction.
Been there, done that. So I didn’t “duck” anything.
If you have any responsible questions, I will respond.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325323
All you did in that post, that you now repeated was to say
“The blue plate will reflect the flux from the cooler green plate.”
which is saying something that is demonstrably, provably, without any doubt, a FALSE statement.
Surrounding this false statement by yada-yada about 2LOT etc does not make this statement TRUE.
As I told you, if the BLUE plate is a black body, it cannot reflect light.
If you keep insisting that nature must do what it cannot do, then you’re admitting that you lost the argument and you are just being a buffoon.
“If you keep insisting that nature must do what it cannot do, then you’re admitting that you lost the argument and you are just being a buffoon.”
Nate, false accusations and insults mean you lose.
You were warned.
“false accusations’
You have very clearly shown, JD, that you cannot distinguish between true and false.
You don’t give a shit whether what you say is a FACT or a non-FACT.
And to boot, Eli’s solution has heat flowing from a hot sun to a warm Blue plate. Then from a warm BLue plate to a cold Space and to a cool Green plate. Then from a Cool Green plate to a cold Space.
In all cases heat is flowing from a higher to a lower temp.
So where is your so-called 2LOT violation, dorkus malorkus?
Nate, the question you need to be asking is why does the green plate restrict the energy flow?
But, you have not shown any interest in learning or facing reality. You will have to be content with your pseudoscience and falsehoods.
“the question you need to be asking”
The 1st question you asked was about 2LOT violations.
I answered it. No heat is flowing from cold to hot. Are we done with that one?
Moving on.
“why does the green plate restrict the energy flow?”
Why can’t it?
You act as if no radiative heat transfer problem could possibly end up with different temperatures on different objects.
Of course that makes no sense.
Heat transfer problems all have different answers for temperatures on different objects, which cannot be simply guessed.
Eli’s solution is standard textbook solution, which also agrees with common sense.
Qualitatively, the shaded Green plate must settle on a temperature BETWEEN the temperatures of its surroundings, which are 3K and 262 K.
To solve a heat transfer problem quantitatively, you have to write down equations based on 1LOT, 2LOT, and SB law, and SOLVE them.
Have you done that? Then let’s see. If not, then you have only hand waving.
“In the incorrect version (blue plate at 262 K), the green plate is no longer an ideal black body. It must “transform” into some type of insulator that only allows 133.33 Watts to flow from the system, thus forcing the blue plate to increase in temperature.
Gibberish.
Show us how you solve the problem with actual equations.
You only need equations in the gibberish solution.
If you understand the relevant physics you would know that both plates would be at the same temperature.
nate…”Elis solution is standard textbook solution, which also agrees with common sense”.
Eli’s solution was dismantled by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both of whom have expertise in thermodynamics. They pointed out to Eli that the 2nd law is about heat transfer and that energies cannot be arbitrarily summed to satisfy the 2nd law.
That’s what Eli is doing, he is summing EM energy and claiming it as a heat transfer. He’s wrong, and so is anyone else who thinks EM energy can be summed and pawned of as heat.
Heat cannot be transferred, without compensation, from a cooler body to a warmer body. Case closed. The meaning is clear re EM. EM from a cooler body is not absorbed by a warmer body, a fact backed up by quantum theory.
Electrons in atoms absorb EM and they cannot absorb EM that does not meet certain criteria. The frequency of the EM must match the electron frequency, which translates to the energy of the EM. If it comes from a cooler body, it’s energy and frequency do not resonate with the electrons in a warmer body and it is not absorbed.
nate…”Elis solution has heat flowing from a hot sun to a warm Blue plate. Then from a warm BLue plate to a cold Space and to a cool Green plate. Then from a Cool Green plate to a cold Space.”
Wrong. Eli’s green plate is radiating to the blue plate and warming it. Swannie made the same incorrect conclusion in his experiments.
Eli’s thought experiment is designed to show how the surface (blue plate) absorbs energy from the Sun, radiates it to the atmosphere (green plate), then have the green plate radiate energy to the surface to warm it BEYOND THE TEMPERATURE IT IS WARMED BY SOLAR RADIATION.
If you buy that pseudo-science you are lacking in the basics of physics.
Gordon,
This is a simple heat transfer homework problem, that many physics and engineering students have solved.
If an engineer needs to solve such a problem, would you recommend solving it with radiative heat-transfer formulas, or just guessing, like JD?
And when you have a plate in the sun, and a plate in the shade, why would you guess that they come to the same temperature?????
Eli and I, and many others have solved it with real equations, and the plates come to different temperatures, just as expected.
Can you solve it? If so, please show us your solution.
Otherwise, go find a textbook and look it up.
OK Nate.
Nate, you’re using the WRONG equation.
That’s only one of your mistakes.
OK JD, show us the right equations and solve them to get your answer.
nate…”Black body: A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
They omitted one condition. This is all done at thermal equillibrium. I have never seen an example where BBs of different temperatures are described.
BBs came from Kircheoff and he developed the theory between bodies at thermal equilibrium. TE is a required condition for the Ks emissivity and absorp-tion to apply.
In several textbooks, you can see a superficial description of the process in which emissivity and absop-tion are applied. None of the examples include temperatures, only an implication that EM can flow both ways between bodies. That can occur only at TE.
That’s where the notion comes from that BBs absorb all incident EM. They do NOT emit all incident EM. A BB acts like a filter where all frequencies enter but only certain frequencies are allowed out.
In our climate discussions it is better to leave all references to BBs out of it. They only confuse the situtation and suggest the 2nd law can be bypassed.
Gordo wrote
Perhaps you should add this text to your reading list:
Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer by Siegel and Howell.
JDHuffman, one more name to add to the list :
Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.
It’s best to let people speak for themselves, Mark.
He has written it a hundred times, for example in this simple experiment:
https://tinyurl.com/y8s73bke
Ibid.
Ibid, Dr Roy Spencer says:
“while it is true that the net flow of heat must be from higher temperature to lower temperature, this does not mean that the lower temperature object cannot (for example) emit radiant energy in the direction of the warmer object, and thus increase the temperature of the warmer object above what it would otherwise be.”
“the 2nd Law violation claims some have made against a cool object (here, the cardboard sheet) causing a heated object to be warmer than if the cool object was not present, which is what the Earth’s greenhouse effect does.”
Mark, when you get time, how about finding all such quotes, with links. Or, at least 8-10 good examples?
svante…” Dr Roy Spencer says:….”
I don’t think it’s fair to draw Roy into this debate. He has a professional image to maintain.
Roy had an exchange a while back with Pierre Latour, a chemical engineer who works in the field of thermodynamics. They both seemed to have agreed to disagree.
I think it should be left at that.
Yeah, if you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it.
Obviously Svante liked making that comment….
But you agree that Dr. Roy Spencer thinks your 2LOT violation is rubbish?
The models do not calculate volcanic activity , solar activity ,geo magnetic field strength in other words they do not calculate the items that influence the climate therefore they are USELESS!
In the meantime the global temperatures continue in a down trend. It is unfortunate we had a rise in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures but that seems to be subsiding some after a rapid blip up or at least I hope it was just a blip.
El Nino not looking nearly as healthy as it was even as recently as a week ago. SOI INDEX should hold positive territory for at least the next week or so. I think -8 is the El Nino threshold which I say is 100% sure to hold over the next week.
As the magnetic fields continue to weaken and the duration of time lengthens I think this is going to translate more and more into a more dynamic effect upon the climate through an increase in major volcanic activity, global snow, cloud coverage increasing , overall oceanic sea surface temperatures cooling and a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.
The thing that I can’t quantify is the magnetic threshold levels of weakness needed which would translate into a more dynamic effect upon the climate. However, I know it is out there.
Let me try an analogy, I do not know if this is good or not, but say we are new to this planet and saw water in a liquid state for the first time. Say someone comes along and said if this liquid water gets cold enough it is going to reach a threshold level and turn into a solid substance. So the water starts to cool but nothing dramatic happens and the person that predicted something would happen to the water says it will happen but the threshold levels(32f) have not been reached yet. Everyone doubts it because it has not happened . He says in vain (he is right but does not know it) but the threshold level is out there.
I think that is similar to what I am saying about the weakening magnetic fields , yes they are weakening but not to much has happened because the threshold levels have yet to be attained.
SDP sets a good example of how science is supposed to work.
He has done his research and developed an hypothesis. His criteria have now been met, and his hypothesis is under test. He does not know for certain if it will be right, or not.
He is not trying to deceive anyone. He has admitted his earlier estimate was wrong. In science, there is nothing unusual about being wrong. Failure to admit you’re wrong, or trying to cover it up, just means you’re a fraud.
If it turns out SDP is entirely wrong, he will likely learn something. That’s how science works.
Exactly JD.
Unlike the people who support AGW theory who assume they are correct with out any concrete evidence. All they do is spin and try to make it look like their theory is correct
Salvatore,
You have always said that the cooling has begun, or that the cooling is about to happen – for more than 10 years you have repeated this message.
You have been wrong again and again and again and again for over a decade.
Rather than wear your medal of repeated capitulation with pride, how about next time earning the integrity badge by admitting your opinion is wrong?
ENSO
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Global SSTs
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
You said you would admit you were wrong about your theories if global temps stayed above the zero line past summer.
That’s what happened, and you did as you’ve done many times over the last 10 years: you pushed your cooling prediction further down the road.
Year after year the same trick from you.
No, you are not intellectually honest.
BARRY, it is cooling it is just not as fast as I have said. This makes me more correct then AGW theory that says it should be warming.
according to the satellite data we are cooling, not warming.
Overall oceanic temperatures are now neutral not warming as AGW theory calls for.
according to the satellite data we are cooling, not warming.
Since when? Yesterday? Last month?
Overall oceanic temperatures are now neutral not warming as AGW theory calls for.
Oceanic temps are not neutral, they are 0.3C above average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
AGW theory does not call for every day or month or year or even decade being warming than the last. Natural variability is ALWAYS going to produce a few days, weeks, months or years being cooler, EVEN IF the globe was DEFINITELY generally warming. That’s the case REGARDLESS of the cause of general change.
If you cannot understand this, you have absolutely no business commenting on the subject.
“If you cannot understand this, you have absolutely no business commenting on the subject.?
barry, you are on record as believing a race horse rotates on its own axis as it runs a racetrack. By your own standards then, you have absolutely no business commenting on anything to do with physics.
Salvatore, weather is cooling, just not as fast as you have predicted. What makes meteorological climate physics more correct then Salvatore is the climate warming from added CO2 ppm increasing the atm. IR opacity came out just as predicted over the 75 years prior to 2013.
—–
No JD, horses rotate on their own axis during an oval track race as they are not observed to run down the backstretch ass first no matter how many times JD makes false claims otherwise. Funny though, keep them up & especially the bogus cartoons showing JD’s incorrect radiative energy transfer physics.
look at the data and figure out Barry.
ball4…”horses rotate on their own axis during an oval track”
Neither you nor your brethern understand the difference between curvilinear translation and rotation about an axis.
In order for the horse to rotate about it’s axis (COG), a force would be required to start it rotating about the axis. However, it’s hooves, bearing its weight would prevent such a rotation due to resistance between the hooves and the ground.
If the horse was on ice, then a shove on it’s hump laterally would likely send it rotating about its COG.
What you see on a tack is a horse performing a translation that runs in a curve. It’s called curvilinear translation.
Furthermore, almost every atom in the horse is moving parallel to a tangent line to the track’s curve. If there was rotation about an axis, the atoms would be turning in circles about the axis.
On the straightaway, the horse is performing straight rectilinear motion. Surely you would not claim it is rotating on the straightaway portion? When it hits the curved portion, the horse simply adjusts the rectilinear motion a small bit at a time.
At no time does it begin rotating in circles about its COG.
It’s feet are on the ground for cripes sake. How does it rotate about it’s COG without its feet slipping?
“Surely you would not claim it is rotating on the straightaway portion?”
Don’t call me surely. The horse runs pretty much straight in the straightaways Gordon. After turning in the turns keeping its face forward on the backstretch.
“When it hits the curved portion, the horse simply adjusts the rectilinear motion a small bit at a time.”
Which is also known as turning the corner. The horse turns in the turns, always running face forward never ass forward as JD claims. JD needs therapy as JD sees things NOT as they are in reality.
“At no time does it begin rotating in circles about its COG.”
Not plural, the horse runs in only one complete oval path for each lap. This ought to be obvious Gordon.
“How does it rotate about it’s COG without its feet slipping?”
The horse, like any oval track runner, has learned through practice how to turn in the turns without slipping.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 18, 2018 at 5:26 PM
ball4…”horses rotate on their own axis during an oval track”
Neither you nor your brethern understand the difference between curvilinear translation and rotation about an axis.
In order for the horse to rotate about it’s axis (COG), a force would be required to start it rotating about the axis. However, it’s hooves, bearing its weight would prevent such a rotation due to resistance between the hooves and the ground.
____________________________________________
A horse has enough power (the so called “Horsepower”) in its hooves, to change its running-direction. Believe me.
Otherwise it always would run against obstacles like trees and rocks and all this things.
And last not least. It would leave the oval racing-track.
Ball4 says, “the horse…always running…ass forward”, so in Ball4’s own words Ball4 confirms that Ball4’s way of looking at Ball4’s problem involves Ball4 claiming that the horse must run ass forward on Ball4’s track, in Ball4’s own words as confirmed by Ball4’s own test.
Sal,
Despite what the troll says, making shit up is not a good example of how science is supposed to work,
“The models do not calculate volcanic activity , solar activity ,geo magnetic field strength in other words they do not calculate the items that influence the climate therefore they are USELESS!”
******
From the article, “How do climate models work?”,
Natural-only runs only include natural factors such as changes in the sun’s output and volcanoes, but they assume greenhouse gases and other human factors remain unchanged at pre-industrial levels. Human-only runs hold natural factors unchanged and only include the effects of human activities, such as increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
By comparing these two scenarios (and a combined “all-factors” run), scientists can assess the relative contributions to observed climate changes from human and natural factors. This helps them to figure out what proportion of modern climate change is due to human activity.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
This helps them to figure out what proportion of modern climate change is due to human activity.
That’s a good idea.
https://tinyurl.com/briffa1998
It seems that each makes its own temperature. Nature, that of nature, man, that of his environment.
Funny, right?
phi….”It seems that each makes its own temperature. Nature, that of nature, man, that of his environment.
Funny, right?”
What is funny, hilarious even, is the graph at your link showing models and Briffa lagging behind the ‘observations’. According to the IPCC, the models are prediction far more than the observations.
The observations are a hoot. That’s a reference to the fudged data from the likes of Had-crut, NOAA and GISS. UAH is obviously not included in the observations.
The observations show no significant warming in the 1930s yet 1934 is still the warmest year in the US. I find it hard to accept it was so hot in the US and not globally. That would be due to the US being covered best by far by surface stations and the rest of the globe barely covered.
Snape you have to be kidding. I can not believe what you just said.
The models are utterly clueless and this is why they are way off now and will continue to be even more off as we move forward.
The models or the modelers do not even know what magnetic fields are, much less the possible climatic effects, the blind leading the blind.
They are clueless and I know 1000x more about the climate then they will ever know.
Snape what will matter is what the climate does over the next few years and that will show who is correct and who is not.
What will matter is what the climate does over the next 30 years (black line top post) and that has already shown who is correct and who is not.
Phi
Maybe you could provide some information about the graph?
Looks like they modeled “natural only” inputs (gray), only to find the observed temperature (red) has been much greater.
Exactly. The original graph comes, unless I’m mistaken, from the TAR.
Nature also has its own thermometers that do not seem to work so badly!
Oh look someone found a proxy they like!
Do not be shy if you have better to present.
Only persons lacking a sound brain can pretend that while GHCN V3 features 7280 stations in total, NOAA in fact would use only 1500 of them.
*
Here is a graph with to plots:
– green: NOAA land-only (of course)
– red: GHCN V3, baselined to the same reference period as NOAA’s, i.e. 1971-2000.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/162k9KG1nWIAefMP6zKftDGbFD7SxOM05/view
Of the 7280 stations, 1066 had to be discarded because they had not enough data during 1971-2000 to generate correct monthly anomalies wrt that period.
*
Here is a chart showing how many stations were used between 1880 and 2018 to create the GHCN anomaly time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bzQ31dLYRnA2_lkswt2U41gNWI3n3X9E/view
Two plots:
– blue: when creating an absolute temperature series;
– red: when creating a series of anomalies wrt the mean of 1971-2000.
*
Anybody having a sound brain will understand upon a quick look on the graph how meaningless it would be for NOAA
– to drop the GHCN V3 station set down to 1500,
and then
– to reconstruct with greatest interpolation effort a synthetic temperature time series so similar to what they would have obtained anyway when dropping no station.
*
What is indeed true is that the available GHCN V3 station set experienced a rapid blowup in the 1950’s, and a dramatic loss during 1989-1991 (about 1200 stations in 2 years, according to commenter MrZ mainly in Australia and China).
Lest it be confusing to Gordon, the peak at 6000 stations is only counting the number of stations with data in those particular years. There are weather stations whose data does not overlap with that peak Stations with short time series appear earlier and later in the record, and they don’t all overlap with the peak. The total number of stations is 7280.
Here’s an enlarged version of Bin’s graph:
https://imgur.com/WZifQxw
barry
You are right, it is confusing to speak about “up to 6214 of 7280 stations” in a graph’s title, wenn 6214 = 7280 – 1066 is the total amount of stations available over the entire period of the time series baselined wrt 1971-2000.
Correct is to write 5700 as this was the peak number of active stations:
1970 |5337|1821
1971 |5392|1829
1972 |5448|1829
1973 |5516|1835
1974 |5582|1848
1975 |5700|1865
1976 |5695|1869
1977 |5682|1865
1978 |5606|1857
1979 |5583|1861
1980 |5567|1856
The rightmost column shows the number of 2.5 degree grid cells for every year.
barry…”….the peak at 6000 stations is only counting the number of stations with data in those particular years”.
Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Once again, straight from NOAA in November 2015:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
Where does it say the slash applies to certain years?
Here’s the parrot sketch from Monty Python. Just substitute Binny or Barry for the shopkeeper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
binny…”Anybody having a sound brain will understand upon a quick look on the graph how meaningless it would be for NOAA
to drop the GHCN V3 station set down to 1500,….”
You idiot. Once again, NOAA admitted on their website, circa 2015, to doing just that. They admitted to slashing their global surface stations to less than 1500. Barry is just as much an idiot for continuing to deny the NOAA admission.
Then again, he denied the IPCC claimed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, after the IPCC put it in writing. They called it a warming hiatus.Barry came back in full denial, offering an obfuscated explanation, just as you are doing now.
Later, around 2015, NOAA retroactively amended the SST to show a trend over that period. Both of you, in your childish naivete, bought their explanation, which is a pack of lies.
If you had the guts to read chiefio objectively you’d see his explanation of how NOAA and GISS have used climate models in which they have interpolated and homogenized the data from less than 1500 stations to SYNTHESIZE the rest.
What now concerns these stupid, stubborn claims that people like me would create and publish temperature anomalies intentionally looking alarmist when compared with those published by Roy Spencer for UAH6.0, let us compare them!
Here is one more time a chart comparing GHCN V3 anomalies with those of UAH 6.0 land-only:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JuuleLdxtcSHgrsX2ZIZso-aerd2a1jM/view
*
Here is a chart showing how many stations were used between 1979 and 2018 to create the GHCN anomaly time series, together with a plot showing the number of 2.5 degree grid cells encompassing active stations in each year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/172M4_hpSgiGSjob4DwvcLz1V31N9N1nn/view?usp=sharing
1300 grid cells on average are not much compared with about 3000 for all land surfaces! That is evident.
A similar graph with GHCN daily (35575 stations in total) would show 2200 active grid cells.
binny…”Here is one more time a chart comparing GHCN V3 anomalies with those of UAH 6.0 land-only:”
It’s total fiction. The series have little in common.
“Here is a chart showing how many stations were used between 1979 and 2018 to create the GHCN anomaly time series, together with a plot showing the number of 2.5 degree grid cells encompassing active stations in each year:”
Have you ever asked yourself the question as to how GHCN could possibly cover 2.5 degree sectors of the surface when there are no thermometers anywhere near most of them?
I have told you, and NOAA has admitted, they do it by fudging temperatures for grid spaces where no thermometers exist. They use interpolation and homogenization in a climate models on real data from thermometers up to 1200 km apart.
In 2015, on their site, they admitted to using less than 1500 stations to cover the 30% of the surface represented by the land surface. Sea surface temperature coverage is even worse.
You are representing chicanery of the highest order, and you believe it.
Gordon Robertson
Is your real name (not your blogging ID) Herb Rose by any chance?
Norman, do you still live on Vine?
norman…”Gordon Robertson
Is your real name (not your blogging ID) Herb Rose by any chance?”
*********
Does Herb Rose sound Scottish? My DNA is pure, unadulterated Scottish. Not Scotch, Scottish.
This is Herb’s theory on gravity, with which I do not agree.
https://principia-scientific.org/a-new-theory-of-gravity/
He claimed, “The matter of an object radiates electrical fields while the energy radiates an energy field which we call the magnetic field”.
Once again, Herb has not gone far enough into atomic theory. Electric fields are produced by electrons and as the electron moves with it’s field, a magnetic field is produced.
Matter per se does not radiate an electric field, it is the electron alone that produces any electric field of consequence. Herb also seems to be confusing electric charge, carried by the electron, with other atomic forces.
I don’t think that has anything to do with gravity, since the EM field produced by electrons travels at the speed of light. At that speed, it takes 8 minutes for EM to travel between the Sun and Earth. Gravity operates across the universe instantly. If it did not, we’d be in deep doo doo wrt to orbits.
Got the link above for Herb from this site by Louis Hissink. Met Louis on Jennifer Marohasy’s old site as a fellow blogger. Quite a character, and a heck of a skeptic.
https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/does-it-matter/comment-page-1/
fritz k…”Inform me right.
-Whats the differenece between radiation from sun and radiation from somewhere else?
-Why can the one from sun raise temperature and the other one not?
-What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?”
Because…the Sun is stupendously hot. It is magnitudes hotter than the earth’s surface. The atmosphere is cooler than the Earth’s surface. Heat gets transferred from hotter bodies to cooler bodies, not the other way around.
And, please, no net energy transfer. Heat is thermal energy to which the 2nd law applies. EM is electromagnetic energy to which the 2nd law does not apply. You cannot merge EM and thermal energy, then claim the 2nd law is satisfied.
Earth surface would get hotter without an atmosphere, but with the atmosphere the earth absorbs more energy.
If a surface could absorb more energy, then the ability of atmosphere to absorb more energy would diminished in comparison- or all the added atmosphere would just be cooling effect because more atmosphere causes more sunlight to be reflected.
The Earth has about 10 tonnes of atmosphere per square meter which is warmed by the sun during the day. And a gram of air warmed by 1 C is one joule of heat. 10 tonnes is 10,000 kg or 10 million grams.
a gram of dirt is about is about 3/4 of joule of heat per 1 C and a gram of water is about 4 joules of heat per 1 C.
When surface air warms by 1 C, air 5 km up is warmed by 1 C and a day might warm by 10 C from morning air to noon.
And for air to warm by 1 C, per square meter, it is absorbing 10 million joules of energy.
If a square meter of sidewalk absorbs 10 million joules of energy, how much does the sidewalk increase in temperature?
A sidewalk is about 4″ of concrete or about 10 cm or 1/10th of meter. A cubic meter of concrete is about 2500 kg, so about 250 kg of concrete per square. Specific heat of concrete is 750 joules per kg: 250 times 750 is 187500 joules per 1 C or 1.85 million joules to warm by 10 C. Or say dirt under sidewalk is warmed also
and make it 2 million joules per 10 C. So if warmed to 50 C it absorbs as much as air warmed by 1 C. So Air absorbs more energy than a sidewalk and a sidewalk absorbs more energy than the ground
[natural terrian] [unless ground is wet and energy used to evaporate that water].
Sunlight warms meters of water depth. 1 meter depth is per square meter is 1000 kg and it’s 4000 joules per kg vs concrete at 750 joules per kg. So water absorbs more sunlight that concrete and more than air.
So going back what said:
“If a surface could absorb more energy, then the ability of atmosphere to absorb more energy would diminished in comparison- or all the added atmosphere would just be cooling effect because more atmosphere causes more sunlight to be reflected.”
So with Earth having an ocean, the surface does absorb more energy.
Therefore,”the ability of atmosphere to absorb more energy would diminished in comparison”
Or if Earth didn’t have ocean and didn’t absorb as much energy, Earth with it’s present amount of atmosphere, would be cooler [or have lower average temperature]
Or if you add back the ocean, it “appear” atmosphere is not absorbing much energy [because the ocean is].
Or if replaced ocean with something which absorbed as much energy as ocean- earth would “roughly” be same average temperature as the Earth with a ocean.
But ocean has other tricks. It moves the heated waters poleward in vast rivers of water. And it evaporate- also allowing heat to move poleward. And evaporation heats the surface air to same temperature as surface. Or a sidewalk does not heat air to same temperature as sidewalk- a sidewalk can be 70 C, but does warm the air to 70 C- unless air is inhibted from convecting heat [parked car or actual greenhouse]. Or water surface convects heat better/faster- a water surface at 70 C will rapidly heat surface air to 70 C.
And global average temperature is “all” about heating poleward.
[whatever the mechanism of doing this]
A hothouse climate has highest global average temperature and hothouse climate is warm polar regions.
And icebox climate is ice caps at the poles.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to everything! Overall entropy can never decrease in any interaction.
Keep studying, Tim. Maybe someday you will learn a racehorse is NOT “rotating on its own axis” on the oval racetrack.
Maybe….
OK JD — you convinced me! I’ll study!
What textbook should I read? What university should I attend? What video can I watch that will explain to me how an object that was facing one way earlier and now is facing another direction did not rotate?
Tim,
1) Start with the definition of rotating on a fixed axis. The rotating sphere, at the link, is such an example. You can also model the motion by spinning an object on a spindle. Rotating on a fixed axis is a motion all its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
2) Then understand the definition of orbiting, as related to an object in a gravitational field. Understand that such a motion is “transitional”, i.e. the object is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. A racehorse on an oval track is an example of this motion. So is the Moon. In orbit, the object is subjected to two vectors. One is due to gravity, and pulls the object “down”. The other vector is the object’s velocity, and is tangent to the orbit. The resultant of the two vectors produces the orbital motion.
“Rotating on its own axis” does NOT produce “orbiting”, and “orbiting” does NOT produce “rotating on its own axis”. The two motions are independent. Earth has both motions. The Moon only has the single motion of orbiting.
(I understand that you are not sincere, Tim, and this is just another one of your tricks. But I answered in case someone else is interested.)
“transitional” should be “translational”!!!
(If I don’t make a typo, auto spell gets me.)
tim…”What textbook should I read? What university should I attend? What video can I watch that will explain to me how an object that was facing one way earlier and now is facing another direction did not rotate?”
The distinction between rotation about an axis and translation is the paths taken by atoms in the body. I am talking about atoms bound in a lattice in a solid. With translation, the atoms must all move in parallel lines.
Let’s use a wooden horse on rails going around the track, much like the mechanical rabbit in dog racing. This is to allow for lateral motion on a real horse due to its musculature and awkward gait. As the wooden horse goes down the straightaway, on rails, there is no argument that the motion is rectilinear translation. Why should that change because the horse goes into a curve? All the atoms in the body are still moving parallel to a tangent to the curve.
In order for that wooden horse to exhibit rotational motion about its centre of gravity, the atoms must start turning in circles about the COG. Unless there is an axle about which the horse can rotate on its platform, it is confined to go in straight lines along the track.
It is not possible for it to rotate about an internal axis but it is still going through a 360 degree rotation about the centre of the track. That’s why it goes down the track one way and down the other side the other way.
As you know, a curve on a track is a series of tangents, which are straight lines. The Moon moves along similar tangential lines, it’s momentum/velocity is always in a straight line. However, the Earth’s gravitational force tugs it around in sequential tangential lines. The resultant between the angular velocity and gravitational acceleration is the orbit.
There is apparent rotation about its axis from the perspective of the Earth but there is no local angular momentum around its axis, therefore the Moon is not rotating around a central axis. The motion is curvilinear translation.
“(the horse) is still going through a 360 degree rotation”
Yes, Gordon the horse on a closed race track turns in the turns; 90 degrees of rotation about its own axis for each of 4 turns – you have added correctly totaling to 360 degrees of rotation on its own axis per lap. The horse is not observed to run down the backstretch ass first like JD claims since the horse has rotated on its own axis 4x in 4 90degree turns to face forward all around the track.
Poor Ball4. He still believes turning in orbit is the same as “rotating on its own axis”. He just can’t see reality.
Must be the drugs….
JD, just so you know, horses on a racetrack turn in the turns, they do not go down the backstretch ass first. More therapy sessions for you at your own recommended organization are needed so you can come down to the reality of horses racing head first. Horses win by a nose at times not an ass.
Poor Ball4. He seems to understand the horse turns, but he can’t grasp the rest of it. He just can’t understand the horse is only modeling the ONE motion–orbiting.
The message to all of us is clear: Stay off drugs!
JDHuffman
It would not be Ball4 that has the problems. I think you should look up the definitions of turning and rotating. They are synonyms of each other. To turn is to rotate.
I am not sure where you get your definitions from. Maybe you should use the online dictionaries sometime.
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit. It is established physics. You are clearly wrong about this and will not consider the reality that you are.
Since you do not accept clear and easy to understand computer simulations clearly showing both rotation and orbit of the Moon, I did suggest you do an actual experiment with a powered ball that spins slowly on top of a rod (motor driven) then move the ball in an orbit with the rod at the same rate the ball is spinning. Paint a face on the ball. The spinning ball will always keep its same face to the center if it spins at the same rate it rotates on its axis.
It is highly unlikely you will ever attempt an actual real experiment. We will have to suffer your endless pseudoscience declarations.
Norman, it is NOT “established physics”. It is “established pseudoscience”.
You don’t have the background or logical faculties to figure it out. You have to rely on your cult leaders to think for you.
The simple model is the horse on a racetrack. By claiming the horse is also “rotating on its own axis”, you reveal your adherence to your false religion.
Sorry JD, it is only in your undefined imaginary world that race horses run down the backstretch ass first having never rotated on their axis. Seek therapy son.
Sorry Ball4, but your strategy of repeatedly misrepresenting my words will only work on addicts and clowns.
So now JD is in denial that JD actually wrote: “the object is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.”
“ring ring” Hey JD it’s your Mom. She says you did write that & there was no misrepresentation. She also wants you to keep your therapist appointment today or your allowance is going to get cut.
Ball4 continues to rally the failing tribe of addicts and clowns.
His strategy of repeatedly misrepresenting my words will work on some of them.
JD, I studied your source @ wikipedia. Thanks for suggesting this as our standard for discussion.
“Purely translational motion occurs when every particle of the body has the same instantaneous velocity as every other particle”
A racehorse on an oval track is clearly NOT an example of this motion. If the instantaneous velocity was always the same, the distance traveled by every particle would be identical. But the side of the horse farthest from the center moves farther in half a lap than the side closest to the center. Same for the moon.
NEITHER UNDERGOES PURELY TRANSLATIONAL MOTION. YOU ARE WRONG (using a simple, direct quote from your own hand-picked source)!
(I understand that you ARE sincere — just misinformed, JD, and that this is just a continuation of your same misunderstanding. But I answered in case someone else is interested.)
Nice try Tim. But, as has been mentioned, physics is NOT about tricks. There is nothing wrong with the definition, it is just your failure to apply it correctly.
You clearly do not understand “translational motion”. (Or maybe don’t want to?)
Study the graphic mentioned below, and then you can spin some more:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325130
Thanks Tim. Once again JD’s own reference correctly shows JD doesn’t know what JD is writing about. Horses only go ass backwards down the backstretch on JD’s imaginary racecourse where objects do not rotate on their on axis. JD’s therapist has a lot of work to do to bring JD down to reality. I hope it doesn’t happen though as JD generates so much laughter as it is.
No new spin from Tim yet.
And zero from anyone else.
I’ll check back later.
Gordon sputters:
“As the wooden horse goes down the straightaway, on rails, there is no argument that the motion is rectilinear translation. Why should that change because the horse goes into a curve? All the atoms in the body are still moving parallel to a tangent to the curve.”
You have the wrong definition of translation. When the horse on rails goes into a curve, a line drawn lengthwise through the horse changes direction. With translation, including curvilinear translation, any fixed line through the object must remain pointing in the same direction throughout its motion. If the horse were facing east along the straightaway, it would have to remain pointing east throughout the curve to be considered translational motion.
You keep repeating the same error over and over with the wrong definition of translation.
tim…”NEITHER UNDERGOES PURELY TRANSLATIONAL MOTION. YOU ARE WRONG (using a simple, direct quote from your own hand-picked source)! ”
I said curvilinear translation.
Another source…same thing.
http://health.uottawa.ca/biomech/watbiom/example3.pdf
“To distinguish among motion patterns all movements can be classified as either translational or rotational or a combination of both. Translational motion occurs when the particles in a body follow parallel paths. Thus, any straight line within the body will have a constant orientation with the respect to an inertial frame of reference. The motion can be either rectilinear or curvilinear. With rectilinear translation, also called, linear motion, all motion is in a straight line; with curvilinear translation the paths are not linear… ”
“Rotational motion, also called angular motion, occurs when particles within the body are considered to have rotated with respect to the centre of the body or an inertial frame of reference”.
With regard to the horse on the track example, consider the track as reference frame 1. Place the horse at x = 1, y =0 as reference frame 2.
Connect ref frame 2 to the origin with a radial line and start the radial line moving around the origin on a circular track. You might do that by applying a force along the y-axis from the -ve end. Ref frame 2 will move with it and the frame will rotate about the origin.
In order for that frame to rotate around the radial line, it must have an angular velocity. The ORIGIN (0,0) of ref frame 2 is described by (r, theta). At x = 1, y = 0, describe that as r = 1, theta = 0.
r will always be 1 and theta will change through 2pi radians or 360 degrees. At r = 1, theta = 0, ref frame 2 is attached to the radial line through its x-axis. Therefore the angle phi between the ref frame 2 x-axis and r is always 0 degrees. There is no force applied to turn ref frame 2 around the end of r.
The only force applied is the force of the horse’s hooves impelling it along the circular track. Those hooves do not turn the horse about its own COG. The hooves are always powering the horse forward on tangential paths around the track.
That describes curvilinear motion which could also be described as a rotation around the ref frame 1 origin.
If you are a human running around a 1/4 mile track (oval) the only reason you can turn and run the curves is to have a resistance on the track surface upon which you can push off to ease around the curve. In other words, you are running along small linear (tangential) lines, gradually shifting from one tangential line to another.
At no time would you consider yourself as rotating around your centre of gravity. To do that, and I have done it in soccer practices, you have to actually turn in full or semi-circles as you run. You do that exercise to strengthen groin muscles and rotator muscles.
That is rotation about a COG coupled with rectilinear or curvilinear translation.
skeptic…”When the horse on rails goes into a curve, a line drawn lengthwise through the horse changes direction. With translation, including curvilinear translation, any fixed line through the object must remain pointing in the same direction throughout its motion”.
It would help if you stifled your ego and looked at this objectively.
A line though the horse from head to tail is always moving parallel to a tangent line to the curved portion of the track. That describes curvilinear motion.
If the horse kept running straight along one of those tangents, it would run off the track. In order to remain on the track and follow the track, the horse must keep adjusting the force with which it pushes of with its hooves to redirect it onto another tangent line.
The force applied by the hooves does not create a rotation about its COG. If it did, the horse would turn head about tail.
The mistake you are making is confusing the reference frames. A coordinate axis through the horse, as a separate frame, can be claimed to rotate about the centre point of the track. However, that axis does not rotate around the horse’s COG. It remains fixed and rotates as a whole about the tracks’s centre.
That rotation is better described as curvilinear translation. In rectilinear translation all points in a body move in parallel lines. It’s the same with the horse on the track. If the horse was rotating about it’s own axis, all points in the horse would turn in circles around its axis.
ball4…”Once again JDs own reference correctly shows JD doesnt know what JD is writing about. Horses only go ass backwards down the backstretch on JDs imaginary racecourse where objects do not rotate on their on axis”.
Makes me wonder if you have ever studied science at all. You think heat does not exist, that it’s a measure of something. Now you think a horse orbiting a track is turning in circles as it runs.
“You think heat does not exist, that it’s a measure of something. Now you think a horse orbiting a track is turning in circles as it runs.”
Heat’s existence was ruled out by experiment in the mid-1800s Gordon so it is not what I think, it is what the experimentalists found. And a horse only turns in ONE circle as it runs a closed course (NOT plural circles) or the horse would be going down the backstretch ass first as is incorrectly claimed by JD.
tim…”“Purely translational motion occurs when every particle of the body has the same instantaneous velocity as every other particle””
I know this came from a wiki article and you should know that wiki articles are often incorrect. They come from submissions from anyone who cares to enter an article.
You are confusing the kinematics of a particle with the kinematics of a rigid body. In a rigid body, the particles are not free to move at different speeds.
It’s not the instantaneous velocity in the case of curvilinear translation, it’s the angular velocity of each particle. Obviously, a particle with radius 1, turning at 1 radian/second, is turning at the same angular velocity as a particle with a radius of 10.
It’s true that the particle at r = 10 is covering more ground than the particle at r = 1 but the angular velocity of a radial line containing those particles is traveling at the same angular rate all along the line.
That’s because the radial line is centred on the track and any particle of the horse along that radial line must turn at the same angular velocity.
All the particles along the radial line are turning parallel to the tangent line of the curve about which they are turning. If they were not, then you’d have angular momentum about the horse’s COG.
Angular velocity is measured in degrees or radians per unit time. You are claiming individual particles in a rigid body move at different velocities, hence the motion is not curvilinear. However, this is a rigid body and the angular velocity in (degrees/radians)/second is what counts.
Furthermore, that velocity is wrt the track, not the horse. For a rotation of the horse, there would have to be a separate reference frame, centred on the horse, that is turning in circles about the horse’s COG.
Gordon,
You have the WRONG definition of translation. You have your own personal incorrect one.
Translation defined:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position [[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
It’s very simple to determine if an object is translating or not. Look at a fixed line drawn through the object. If that fixed line does not remain pointing in the same direction throughout its motion, then we know it’s not translating. Period.
A horse or train on rails going through a curve is not translating, because a line drawn through the center of the horse/train is changing directions.
Even your OWN reference shows an illustration of curvilinear translation where the line through the object does not change directions (Figure 5.1):
http://health.uottawa.ca/biomech/watbiom/example3.pdf
You totally ignored the statement in the above reference regarding translation:
“Thus, any straight line within the body will have a constant orientation with the respect to an inertial frame of reference”
Constant means something that does not change. A straight line through the object will be oriented the same way throughout the motion.
It’s hard to take you seriously when you continually make up your own definitions.
skeptic…”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position …”
Ever occur to you that your source is wrong?
If you have a body doing rectilinear translation along the x-axis, and it curves up toward x = 1, then smoothly carries on along x = 1, did it move parallel to it’s original position during the curve?
Rather than carrying on in the same direction, suppose it now curves in a ‘u’ and back along x = 1. It translates in the forward direction in the +ve x-direction, does a u-ey, then translates in the opposite direction.
Sound familiar? Put another U on the other end and it does a U-ey and heads back in the positive x-axis direction along x = 0.
That is rectilinear and curvilinear motion.
“Ever occur to you that your source is wrong?”
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Brown University Engineering Department got the definition of translation wrong?
Here’s more:
“Translation: Every line segment in the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
[http://www.engineering.uco.edu/~aaitmoussa/Courses/ENGR2043/Dynamics/Chapter4/ch4.pdf]
“Consider rigid body in translation: – direction of any straight line inside the body is constant”
[http://aeweb.tamu.edu/aero211/Files/Lectures/Fall%202009/Rigid%20Body%20Kinematics.pdf]
The above has a very clear illustration of rectilinear and curvilinear translation on page 3.
“Translation: Translation occurs if every line segment on
the body remains parallel to its original direction during the
motion.”
[http://facstaff.cbu.edu/~pshiue/Courses/ME202/Notes/Ch16_1_16_3.pdf]
No, Gordon. YOU have the wrong definition of translation.
An object travelling in a straight line, with a straight line through its body always oriented to the same direction (north, for example), is moving in rectilinear translation. All agree. Upthread, you agreed with me that when forced into a curve by gravity, the object would remain moving in translational motion. You quoted me saying:
“Rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity is still translation”
And you responded:
“Yes”.
Which must mean that you think the object I mentioned above, when forced into a curve by gravity, would still remain pointing north, throughout its orbit. You think only the center of mass would be forced into the curve, whilst the orientation of the body would remain unchanged. Correct? Or are you going to change your previous answer from “yes”, to “no”?
“If you have a body doing rectilinear translation along the x-axis, and it curves up toward x = 1, then smoothly carries on along x = 1, did it move parallel to its original position during the curve?”
Your description is not clear, as usual. Because the motion along the “curve up” could be translational or it could be rotating on its axis. Your imprecise description does not give enough information.
The object you are describing is going around a standard track and field race track. Let the object be an arrow of certain length and width. The following will describe the arrow translating around the track:
At the start line the arrow points east, which is also the initial direction of travel. At the first turn, the arrow continues to point east as it moves along the curve. It completes the first curve and now is facing backwards as it proceeds along the backstretch (it is still pointing east). It now proceeds along the final curve, once again still pointing east. When it reaches the homestretch, it will be facing forward again, but is still pointing east. It crosses the finish line pointing east and facing forward. That is translation. It did not rotate at all. And a line though the arrow remained parallel to its original direction throughout the motion.
A person actually running a race will be translating only on the straight portions of the track. On the curved portions he’ll be rotating on his own axis, since if he did not rotate, he’d be running sideways in the curves and running backwards on the backstretch just like the arrow did.
SGW, you’re still confused about orbiting. Orbiting is translational motion. So, the runner has the same motion, even though he appears to be turning. I think that is what is confusing you.
Are you also confused about what “skeptic” means?
Team Dork,
Will you please stop with the “forced into a curve” business? I answered all your questions above. You are just playing games and attempting some kind of “gotcha”.
But if you insist, I will give an example which I think fits your “forced into a curve” fixation.
A cannon sits on the edge of a high cliff. The barrel is horizontal, and it has a spherical cannonball. When shot, the cannonball travels down the tube of the cannon with rectilinear tranlational motion (assume the ball does not spin in the barrel). At the point it exits the cannon, gravity acts on the ball, and it will now exhibit curvilinear translational motion. At no point does the cannonball rotate. And if you draw a fixed line through the cannonball, that line will remain parallel to its original direction all throughout its motion. That is translational motion, both rectilinear and curvilinear.
Why are you avoiding my questions, SGW?
Since you are not going to be honest, I will just take your previous “yes” as still being your answer. So, that must mean that you think the object I mentioned above, when forced into a curve by gravity, would still remain pointing north, throughout its orbit. You think only the center of mass would be forced into the curve, whilst the orientation of the body would remain unchanged.
OK, so the final question:
What causes the object to remain pointing north throughout its orbit?
SGW, I think you are making progress, with your statement: “At no point does the cannonball rotate.”
That’s correct. The cannonball is NOT “rotating on its own axis”, as it leaves the cannon. And it continues NOT “rotating on its own axis”, in flight.
But, the cannonball falls toward Earth, due to gravity. But the gravity is only turning the path of the cannonball. The cannonball is still NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
(I must have messed up italics. Here’s the corrected version.)
SGW, I think you are making progress, with your statement:“At no point does the cannonball rotate.”
That’s correct. The cannonball is NOT “rotating on its own axis”, as it leaves the cannon. And it continues NOT “rotating on its own axis”, in flight.
But, the cannonball falls toward Earth, due to gravity. But the gravity is only turning the path of the cannonball. The cannonball is still NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
And the moon in the infamous gif on the right is performing curvilinear translation as well(only the curve is a circle), since per the definition of translation, a line drawn though that moon keeps parallel to its original direction throughout the movement.
“though” = “through”
The problem with the cannon example is that the earth’s surface is not flat, and the cannon shoots the cannonball theoretically straight, so not a perfect example. For that small distance, we would have to assume the earth is flat, and that gravity acts normal to the earth’s surface.
Team Dork,
Forget the “forced into a curve” business. I am not going down that road. So I’m saying no to your repeated attempts to obfuscate the issue. Kinematics deals will the motion and NOT the forces which cause the motion. To determine whether an object is experiencing curvilinear translation, you have to compare its motion to the requirements which define curvilinear translation. If “forced into a curve” causes any kind of rotation or change of direction of a line passing through that object, then it is not “curvilinear translation”. I am not answering anymore of your questions.
You are on ignore just like JD.
I truly wish I was on everyone’s “ignore” list.
“What causes the object to remain pointing north throughout its orbit?”
Its called rotational inertia.
Because of inertia, an object’s orientation, if previously fixed, will remain fixed, unless the object is acted on by a torque.
A force acting through the center of mass, cm, of the object, as gravity does on a sphere, cannot produce torque.
Hence, while gravity can cause a sphere’s cm to move in a curved path (cannon ball, moon). It will not change its orientation.
Oh, Nate, hello. Out of everyone’s comments here you have replied to mine. What a surprise. Thank you for your answer.
You’re welcome. You asked a good question. It deserved an answer.
Nate,
DREMT (aka Team Fork) is just playing games. He’s a troll. He has obviously never taken a physics course in his life. He does not understand what translation is since he can’t figure out the correct motions in the moon gif I and others posted. You can see his stupid antics farther down in the comments, trying to attempt “gotchas”.
All he’s interested in is attention. Maybe he’s lonely? I don’t give a ****. But it’s best just to ignore him, like JD. He’s an *******.
He does not deserve an answer, because he’s not interested in the truth.
Picture JD as the organ grinder, with Team Dork as his monkey.
That’s a great way to ignore someone, SGW. Talk about them.
By the way, I would have said that rectilinear translation on the surface of the Earth would be like going along in a straight line, say West to East, along the Earth’s equator, for example. I would say that going along, in that straight line, with all lines through the body remaining parallel to its original position, would be rectilinear translation.
But what happens when you go along the equator all the way around the Earth?
Oh dear! Is it suddenly not rectilinear translation any more because you have also moved in a circle right round the Earth?
…and if you were driving around the equator, as Nate explained, gravity can’t keep your car pushed down following the curve of the Earth…so as you drive round, very, very slowly, your car will lift up at the front until you are driving on the rear wheels, then, as you get to a point a quarter of the way around the equator, you will be scraping along the ground with the car facing straight up. Then, as you get to the half-way mark, you will gradually descend until you are scraping along the ground on the roof. And so on.
“I would say that going along, in that straight line, with all lines through the body remaining parallel to its original position, would be rectilinear translation.”
If so, then youd have to be a flat-earther! Would not be surprised.
You might pretend that out of sheer desperation, Nate, by carefully avoiding all mention I made of going around the Earth!
Seriously…let’s imagine for a minute that there was a highway following all the way, right around the Earth’s equator. Let’s imagine it is “flat” all the way around. No hills, inclines, mountains etc.
You drive 100 meters down the road. Rectilinear translation, yes/no?
You drive 1000 miles down the road. Rectilinear translation, yes/no?
You drive down the road until you are back where you started (yes Nate, a round Earth). Rectilinear translation, yes/no?
The car driving normally around the Earth’s equator would be like the motion in the left gif. Yes/No?
The car lifting up at the front and then scraping along on its back, etc, would be like the motion in the right gif. Yes/No?
Does the moon rotate on its own axis. Yes/No?
Of course the car traveling along the equator is not rectilinear translation, nor was it ever, it just appears to be over short distances( again , unless you are flat-earther).
Just as the moon in its orbit, over a short period of time, appears to be moving in a straight line, but of course is not.
As for the car flipping up in the air, No. Cars on the surface of Earth, as you well know, keep their wheels on the ground. I’ll let you ponder why.
Not so for cars in orbit.
http://theconversation.com/elon-musk-and-tesla-a-magician-in-space-92541
Six yes/no questions, Nate. I knew you would be unable to give simple, direct yes/no responses to all six (despite demanding it from others, elsewhere). So far you have answered 0/6.
Have another go.
skeptic…”Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Brown University Engineering Department got the definition of translation wrong?”
In the University of BC electrical engineering department they still teach that electrical current flows from positive to negative, which is clearly wrong.
At MIT, Kerry Emanuel, in the meteorology department, teaches AGW theory while Richard Lindzen in atmospheric physics claims AGW is wrong.
In many universities throughout the world they teach that HIV will cause AIDS by defeating the entire immune system. The scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV will not harm a healthy immune system and he has been proved correct by the data. In countries like Canada and the US, where the majority of immune systems are healthy, the number of cases of AIDS is a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
Yes, Brown University is wrong if they maintain that in curvilinear translation, every particle must remain parallel to its original position. Did you notice they did not provide an example of curvilinear motion?
You should live up to your nym as a skeptic. As it stands, you are a believer with an appeal to authority.
The honest answer to the top two questions in this link, about the two gifs:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325986
is “yes” to both, regardless of whether you agree with the analogy. That could help you get started.
…and the point you are deliberately missing with the first three questions is when does rectilinear translation forced into a curve by gravity, become curvilinear translation (without you insisting on a definition not fit for purpose).
skeptic….re definition of curvilinear motion from Brown University:
After some thought, I agree with them. If a body at 0,0 starts along the x-axis, every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. If at x = 1, the body starts to turn up toward y = 1, it is no longer executing rectilinear translation. It is now curvilinear translation.
From the instant it deviates from the x-axis along a smooth curve, every line through the body that was traveling parallel to the x-axis, is now traveling parallel to the tangent lines of the curved path it is following.
I think Brown is guilty of using language that is a bit misleading by using the reference ‘original position’. That gives an indication of only the rectilinear starting position. The moment the translation changed from rectilinear to curvilinear, a new original position’ has to be defined.
We must forgive them, however, since this is likely a dumbed-down course for neophytes.
If the change of direction is along a smooth curve, that new original position would be based on a tangent line to the starting point of the curve. If a vertical line defined the initial rectilinear position, with parallel lines vectors running perpendicular to the vertical, indicating the body motion, then that line through the body would turn into the curve.
It would maintain a perpendicular angle to each tangent line around the curve, hence all line vectors would still be traveling parallel to the original position of the body as it entered the curve.
We tend to generalize geometry to straight lines and flat surfaces. However, lines of latitude on the Earth’s sphere are called parallels. I think any curved lines that have an equal distance between them should be called parallel.
skeptic…from GR…”If you have a body doing rectilinear translation along the x-axis, and it curves up toward x = 1, then smoothly carries on along x = 1, did it move parallel to its original position during the curve? ”
Yes…this was an error on my part which I did not notice till recently.
The body is translating along the x-axis, which is obviously, y = 0, then it translates along a curve up to y = 1. Then it goes back to rectilinear translation in the -ve direction along y = 1, finally converting to curvilinear back to y = 0.
In other words, it’s a similar track along which the horse runs. Pure translation all the way around since the alignment of lines through the body remain parallel throughout the entire course.
“I think Brown is guilty of using language that is a bit misleading by using the reference ‘original position’. That gives an indication of only the rectilinear starting position. The moment the translation changed from rectilinear to curvilinear, a new original position’ has to be defined.”
Gordon. It was not just Brown University. I gave multiple references that state the same definition for translation. Why are you fighting the definition of translation? Translation just changes the position of the object without changing its orientation. Same thing with geometric translations. A line through the object has to remain pointing in the same direction throughout its motion.
Why have any definitions at all if driving along a straight road for 100 meters cant be considered rectilinear translation due to the curvature of the Earth?
Gordon,
I did not quote the complete definition of translation given by
Brown University. The full text states:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
So an object like a train or race car negotiating a curve will not be translating for the additional reason that the velocity of the outside edge of the train or race car will not be the same as the inside of the car or train. You CAN have curvilinear translation, but this requires the object negotiating the curve to point in the same direction throughout the curve.
And even on the straight sections of the course, the train or race car will not be purely translating due to the curvature of the Earth. You see, apparently even on a straight section of road or track, of, say, 100 meters, you cannot have pure rectilinear translation. Bummer! Translation has been defined out of existence altogether. Everything is rotation!
DREMT,
I answered your good and relevant question here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325890
And you had nothing to say to rebut it. Yet you don’t incorporate it into your thinking.
Then you go right back to ignorance again. So what’s the point in answering your questions?
If the answers don’t support your beliefs, then you will just ignore them and go back to your nonsense.
You keep trying out new examples, but they really are the same in the end, irrelevant.
As I tried to show with the car in orbit, your example of the car driving around the equator is no different from the car or horse around the track.
IE not relevant to orbits where no tracks or wheels are needed.
OK Nate.
skeptic…”So an object like a train or race car negotiating a curve will not be translating for the additional reason that the velocity of the outside edge of the train or race car will not be the same as the inside of the car or train. You CAN have curvilinear translation, but this requires the object negotiating the curve to point in the same direction throughout the curve”.
When you deal with a rigid body moving in a curve, you must consider the angular velocity of the entire body wrt a radial line from the focal point of the curve through the body.
With curves like ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, etc,. the focal point is a point within the curve whose distance from the curve radially to a point on the curve is the same as the distance from the same point to a line (the directrix) outside the curve. No matter which point is selected on the graph of the curve, the distance of the focal point to that point must equal the distance to the directrix.
I’m trying to make the point that a focal point in any continuous curve can be treated the same as a radial line in a circle from origin to circumference.
I am not getting this from Google, I studied this in calculus.
So, we have a radial line from the FP following a rigid body moving around the curve. A tangent line to the radial line at any point of the curve indicates the instantaneous path of the rigid body. That is especially true when the body is free to move on its own (not on a rail) and is being held on the track by a force directed inward toward the track centre. A horse’s hooves would be exerting such a force or the horse could not turn.
If you have ever done ice skating, you’ll know that any fast, gradual turn on a curve required small steps in which one skate is crossed over the other. The blades of the skates must dig into the ice to propel you around the curve once step at a time. Of course, you could glide around the curve but that still requires the blades digging into the ice to exert force.
The velocity of the body is the angular velocity of the radial line through it. That line is changing in degrees or radians per second. Since that line goes right through the body, every particle in the body is moving at the same angular velocity.
Even though outer particles move faster than inner particles, that is a local issue and not pertinent with a rigid body, unless the body is also turning on its axis independently of its forward motion.
I get it that over a 360 degree orbit of a track, a horse does turn through 360 degrees. That has nothing to do with local rotation and is a property of the orbit itself, which is referenced to the track and not the horse.
If you consider a radial line from the FP through the COG of the rigid body, then all particles are moving perpendicular (tangential) to the radial line hence parallel to the tangential line.
That defines curvilinear translation.
It’s equivalent to rectilinear translation where all particles in the body move parallel to the direction of travel in a straight line. In a curve, the straight line becomes the instantaneous tangential line to the curve.
Any curve can be defined as a series of tangent lines to the curve. That’s what calculus comes down to essentially. The limit of a change in the curve at any point comes down to the slope of the tangent line at that point.
The first derivative of any continuous curve is the slope of the tangent line at any point on the curve.
I realize my description would make mathematicians pull their hair out due to my lack of rigour. However, I’m trying to make the point that the tangent line is extremely important in curves and becomes the basis for motion along a curve.
nate…”I would say that going along, in that straight line, with all lines through the body remaining parallel to its original position, would be rectilinear translation.
If so, then youd have to be a flat-earther! Would not be surprised”.
You seem to presume that rectilinear translation applies only to straight lines on local flat surfaces.
I have driven across the Canadian Prairies where in places it is as flat as the proverbial pancake. I figured out that the flatness only extends 25 miles at most. That’s where the visual horizon hides the curvature of the Earth.
In essence, all rectilinear translation on the Earth is performed on a curved surface.
“In essence, all rectilinear translation on the Earth is performed on a curved surface.”
Precisely!
Curly pats Larry on the back and says nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Guys, give it up. Your argument was lost many moons ago.
Still waiting for Gordon to discuss the broom experiment, and for Gordon and JD to actually SOLVE the GPE homework problem.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 18, 2018 at 2:41 AM
fritz kInform me right.
-Whats the differenece between radiation from sun and radiation from somewhere else?
-Why can the one from sun raise temperature and the other one not?
-What happens with the energy which is transferred from atmosphere to ground if it doesnt raise temperature of ground?
Becausethe Sun is stupendously hot. It is magnitudes hotter than the earths surface. The atmosphere is cooler than the Earths surface. Heat gets transferred from hotter bodies to cooler bodies …
__________________________________________________
I didnt ask about temperature of sun nor “heat transfer” but for transferred energy.
Although yo textet a long text, my simple questions are still unanswered:
-Why cant the energy transferred from atmosphere to ground not raise temperature of the ground?
What else should happen with this transferred energy?
Accordig to YOUR opinion of course.
Do you agree, energy cant just disappear into nowhere?
Thinking about this simple fact woud be the first step for your understanding of GHE.
It’s common to average the amount energy the earth absorbs from the sun and it’s about 240 watts per square meter. And Earth emits on average about 240 watts per square meter.
So energy not disappearing.
But regarding disappearing energy, the ocean can absorb heat and retain this heat for thousands of year, so with the ocean, energy can disappear and then reappear centuries later.
And disappearing and reappearing of stored heat, is the main story regarding global climate.
And in terms of global weather, the atmosphere over shorter time periods, can also “disappear” energy to have reappear later.
gbaikie says:
October 18, 2018 at 9:09 PM
Its common to average the amount energy the earth absorbs from the sun…
_____________________________________________
Maybe. But not my question.
What happens with the energy which is radiated from the ATMOSPHERE to he ground?
Is it also absorbed by water, stones, sand and whatsoever?
Do this materials warm or not, when absorbing radiation?
If no warming – what happens to the energy, they did absorb?
fritz…”I didnt ask about temperature of sun nor heat transfer but for transferred energy”.
Don’t be stupid, fritz, heat is energy. Without it, there would be no EM radiation because everything would be at 0K.
Heat gets transferred from the Sun via EM and that happens because the Sun is megawatts hotter than the earth. It does not happen in reverse, from Earth to Sun.
Heat gets transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction, convection, and radiation because the surface is hotter than the atmosphere in general. GHGs absorbing EM from the surface and warming cannot send EM back to the surface to warm it.
2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 18, 2018 at 11:06 PM
fritz…”I didnt ask about temperature of sun nor heat transfer but for transferred energy.”
Don’t be stupid, fritz, heat is energy.
______________________________________________-
Howsoever I did ask for transferred ENERGY.
If you believe its both the same (Do you realy think so??), why do you bother? Why dont you just answer my questions?
Again:
-Why cant the energy radiated from atmosphere to ground not raise temperature of the ground?
-What else should happen with this transferred energy?
Really noone has any idea?
AGW , has never , is not and will not ever happen. All the rise in global temperatures up to say the end of 2016 or there about was due to natural factors ranging from high solar activity through 2005, lack of very little major volcanic activity, a warm PDO/AMO, limited cloud/snow coverage on a global basis, and stronger geo magnetic field and so on.
Now as then, AGW is still trying to hi jack natural climatic variation and this is why they want El Nino to come about so they can use that to keep their false theory alive.
If one looks at the current El Nino situation I guess it is disappointing of late in contrast to two weeks ago. SOI index is not going to be going below -8 threshold readings for El Nino any time soon.
As each month goes by one has to ask why is there not any further global warming occurring? To the contrary it is cooling ,not as fast as I would like but it is cooling and this has been going on for the past few years being more apparent this year.
Just compare the satellite data on global temperatures this year versus last year.
“Just compare the satellite data on global temperatures this year versus last year.”
That’s weather Salvatore.
The black line for climate in top post is unchanged this year versus last year.
The current black line as shown is above the same former black line drawn as it was 75 years ago by the predicted amount of global T increase from the actual increase in CO2 ppm.
Wrong. Weather is day to day changes, anything longer is climate.
2 days is not climate either Salvatore. The black line top post is climate.
Again weather is day to day changes.
Climate can change in a year or less.
We will never agree, so this is my last response to this subject.
What you really mean, Salvatore, is you will never agree with the common everyday meaning of the word climate.
Salvatore’s method … redefine every term until the data fits your claim.
bob…”Salvatores method redefine every term until the data fits your claim”.
Far better than the climate alarmists like NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut who re-write the historical record to bring it in line with their religious beliefs on warming and climate change. They also manipulate confidence levels, lowering them till a relatively cool year moves into first place.
Which itself is far better than oil-funded deniers who are prepared to make up any fiction about the study of climate science and present it as fact.
bob…”Which itself is far better than oil-funded deniers who are prepared to make up any fiction about the study of climate science and present it as fact”.
Lame.
Prove there is one skeptical scientist who denies global warming, who is funded by oil companies, who makes up fictitious studies of climate science.
I know you got that propaganda from attending classes at realclimate, desmogblog, skepticalscience, and the likes. You likely write letters of approval to Eli Rabbett.
I get my science from reading scientific papers, not reading blog websites. And who the f*** is Eli Rabbett?
YOUR degree was clearly funded by the fossil fuel industry. How else could a man with a family afford to give up work for 5 years?
bob…”And who the f*** is Eli Rabbett?”
Come on, bob, you need to get up to speed. Eli Rabbett is the nym of the alarmists who posed the blue plate/green plate thought experiment.
In reality, he is Josh Halpern, a physicist who teaches chemistry. He has published two papers as part of a team attacking the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, in which G&T debunked the GHE and AGW. Both specialize in thermodynamics.
He offered the same ridiculous scenario to G&T and they told him why it is wrong. They told him the 2nd law applies to heat and that it is not permissible to add other energies and claim them as heat. In other words, a fictitious net balance of ‘energies’ does not satisfy the 2nd law. Unless of course, those energies are heat in the proper context.
Eli is doing exactly that in the BP/GP thought experiment, summing EM energies and claiming them as heat. Then our local pseudo-scientists got into the act.
Swannie did an experiment in which he claimed a plate warmed by a heated plate could back-radiate EM to make the heated plate even warmer. Norman jumped in with both feet and he is still promoting that pseudo-science.
An alternative argument has fallen on deaf ears. Neither norman nor swannie get it that a heated source has a maximum temperature which is reduced by dissipation due to conduction, convection, and radiation. When you interfere with any one of those means of dissipation, the heated plate warms toward its maximum temperature.
They both think the cooler plate is causing that warming and so apparently does Eli Rabbett, the physicist.
I got none, Eli got 107 last I checked could be more
How many do any of you trolls got?
Of what do you ask?
Gordo, Your deviant physics is showing again. There’s no such thing as a “maximum” temperature, only the temperature which a body exhibits as it’e energy flow achieves a balance between the energy flowing in and the energy flowing out of the body thru your stated pathways. Change those pathways and that temperature changes as a result. In one sense, that temperature is just a measure of the combined effects of those pathways, as well as the temperature of the surroundings, including deep space at 2.7K, the ultimate “sink” for all those energy flows.
That those energy flows include “back radiation” from cooler sources toward warmer bodies is a well established fact in engineering and science. Simply referencing a 150 year old version of the 2nd Law doesn’t change what’s been learned since.
Climate vs weather definition
Climate vs. Weather. Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere in a region and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variations, whereas climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval.
Good work Salvatore. Now look up the commonly used climate “specified interval” for statistical weather as Dr. Spencer references a certain authority for the black line top post – looking up those details would be a decent starting point.
My mid-month guesstimate for October’s UAH anomaly: +0.23
des, you’re very close!
I’m going with +0.22
☺
Your first appearance on this site was a month after I stopped calling myself Des. Oops!
My, how time flies.
Indeed. It flew so quick, g.e.r.a.n forgot he was not supposed to know my old name.
Well don’t feel left out, des. Apparently g.e.r.a.n had so many fans he couldn’t possibly remember all their names.
You seem to have comprehension issues. Perhaps read my comment again.
You seem to have comprehension issues. Perhaps read my comment again.
Very good – you can copy and paste.
Now – how you reread my previous comment yet?
“have”
My guesstimate is +0.29, as it seems polar and ocean temp anomalies will continue to be increase in the next few days.
Actually, it’s on the way down.
I would rate it a much greater chance of finishing under 0.2 than up at 0.29.
October anomalies have been warmer than September.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2018-10-19.gif
Where is that data from? I have found the website, but I can’t find the page with that date.
Also, in your graph, do the vertical gridlines represent the start or middle of the month?
“Debating with Clowns”
Alarmist 1: 2 + 2 = 115.73
Skeptic: No, 2 + 2 = 4
Alarmist 1: What’s “4”?
Skeptic: It’s a number.
Alarmist 2: No dummy, 4 is an amount!
Skeptic: Yes, it’s a quantity.
Alarmist 3: OMG, the idiot doesn’t even know what a number is.
Alarmist 1: If you believe 2 + 2 = 4, then where’s the proof?
Skeptic: 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
Alarmist 1: You can’t round off.
Skeptic: I didn’t round off.
Alarmist 2: Now the dummy is rounding off.
Alarmist 3: Yeah, he makes up his own arithmetic.
Alarmist 4: Skeptic can’t count, rejects arithmetic books, prefers rounding off over actual science-papers and experiments.
Skeptic: Look, I just showed that 2 + 2 = 4.
Alarmist 1: Then why did you claim the answer was 17?
Skeptic: I never claimed any such thing!
Alarmist 2: You just can’t make up stuff. You are an “Arithmetic Denier”.
Skeptic: I clearly proved that 2 + 2 = 4. You just don’t want to admit you’re wrong.
Alarmist 1: What’s “4”?
(to be continued, ad infinitum)
Ha ha, so true!
JDHuffman
I see your love blows kisses of approval your way. What a sweet relationship to behold.
Your little back and forth in no way represents how posters interact with you.
Better would be.
Norman: g.e.r.a.n do and experiment to prove your declarations?
g.e.r.a.n: You are a clown that does not know physics, go study some.
Norman: JDHuffman do an experiment to prove your declarations.
JDHuffman: pseudoscience, bogus, clowns that are funny.
Norman: JDHuffman give support for your declarations.
JDHuffman: You don’t know physics study some.
JDHuffman: Radiative Fluxes don’t add.
Norman: Turn on another light in your room.
JDHuffman: Radio towers and Poynting vectors. John Henry. Pseudoscience. Clowns that are funny.
Norman: Have you looked at the definition of radiative flux?
JDHuffman: Clown go study some physics.
Norman: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
If you have another light on you have more power through a given area.
JDHuffman: You just can’t understand. Clown, funny pseudoscience.
That is much closer to the reality of interacting with a person like you. As all things with you, how you portray your interactions is completely false and misleading. That is how you operate.
Norman, you could have just said “4 + 4 = 115.73”. It would have reflected your grasp of reality just as well.
But, maybe you needed more typing practice….
JDHuffman
Your response certainly describes my own interaction with you correctly. You have nothing of value to contribute. I did not mentions the “typing practice” in my exchange. I should have also included that one. When you are unable to defend or support your ideas you resort to that one as well as the others.
You will continue posting and making unproven and unscientific declarations. When anyone challenges you on your lack of knowledge, you will revert to one of your many redundant sayings (pseudoscience, clown, study physics, etc).
Standard practice for you it seems. Have you done any experiments yet? I didn’t think so. You have all these unsupported declarations but you won’t do even one test. Why is that?
Norman says: “I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/florida-major-hurricane-strikes-still-no-trend/#comment-324504
Norman like to refute himself….
JDHuffman
Must you always prove your lack of reading comprehension?
You want to make a claim I refute myself but that only exists because you have such a limited ability to read and comprehend.
I said “I want to”. Your inability to debate in rational, logical or scientific levels makes my goal with you unachievable.
With others (that are rational, knowledgeable, logical) I will stick to the science. With you, Gordon Robertson, DREMT it is not a possible choice. You are all into pseudoscience, making up things you don’t understand, posting absurd unscientific fluxes, claiming the Moon does not rotate on its axis, not accepting valid scientific experiments, not doing any of your own. NO you make science impossible with you. I can declare you are wrong, you declare I am wrong. That is the extent of your rational thought process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
This Monty Python sketch is about as far as anyone will ever get with you.
“With you, Gordon Robertson, DREMT…”
Obsessed.
Norman, any clown can type out long, irrational, pointless comments.
Learn to coherently and succinctly address the relevant physics, if you truly want to ONLY discuss the science.
Leave all the person attacks and false accusations in the waste basket.
JDHuffman
Keeping it short. It is not possible to discuss any science with you. You reject established science. You reject experimental evidence. You won’t do any experiments on your own.
As Ball4 explained, your primary value on this blog is entertainment.
Norman, much shorter, very good, but you now need to work on accuracy.
I do NOT reject established science, I reject “established pseudoscience”.
I do NOT reject experimental evidence, I reject unverifiable, incomplete, unsupported, bogus “experiments”.
I have done experiments, and will do more.
If you are trying to gain some credibility, don’t say things about people you cannot clearly substantiate. Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to accept your own biased opinions as fact.
JDHuffman
I have asked it several times now, you have not produced a good reply to date.
YOU: “I do NOT reject established science, I reject “established pseudoscience” False, you reject all science that does not match your own limited view of reality. In real science the moon rotates once on its axis as it orbits which is why you see the same side. You could easily verify this if you had a spinning object on rod and then orbited that about a central point. You would see that the rotating object is keeping the same face to the center if you orbit at the same speed the object is rotating.
YOU: “I do NOT reject experimental evidence, I reject unverifiable, incomplete, unsupported, bogus “experiments”. False the experiment is complete for what it set out to prove. You should do it yourself before calling it bogus. Your declarations are really phony if you won’t do an experiment yourself!
YOU: “I have done experiments, and will do more.”
I have not seen any evidence you do any experiments at all. Describe one.
As it stands you lack all credibility. You reject even Clausius concepts and all heat transfer physics. Every bit of it. You make up cartoon drawings and expect people to think you know what you are talking out. Wrong. It makes you look like a dumb person that is clueless.
Norman says: “I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
“I see your love blows kisses of approval your way. What a sweet relationship to behold.“
Bonkers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Bonkers”
No I would say an actual observation of your posting behavior. You mostly post around debates with JDHuffman and once in awhile will jump in to defend Gordon Robertson.
Mostly you seem like your holding hands with JDHuffman. When he blabbers some unproven antiscientific comment and intelligent logical posters tell him he is wrong, you are very quit to tell these posters to stop trolling and lately you have posted more meaty content which totally seems to support JDHuffman’s posts. I have not seen you once tell this poster that he is incorrect, wrong or lacks any knowledge of physics. If I ever see this honesty from you I will think you must have had a lover’s spat or something.
Careful not to crush your love when you hug him.
I would describe your obsessions as “bonkers”, and that is an observation, not an insult, and I stand by it, so you are not allowed to be offended.
Norman knows his world is crashing. His pseudoscience has failed him. The racehorse is NOT rotating on its own axis, as Norman wanted so hard to believe. The blue and green plates are shattered pieces on the floor, all at the same temperature.
And one of Norman’s pseudoscience heroes has announced he is in therapy.
That’s when Norman goes maniacal.
Likely his neighbors are well prepared….
JDHuffman
I think you are incorrect with your declarations.
When you do some actual experiments proving that I am wrong I will consider your declarations. As of now yours are the only pseudoscience on this blog. You have unproven, unsupported declarations by the many but you will never attempt even simple experiments to prove your points.
Do an experiment to show blue and green plates (under the specified conditions) will reach equal steady state temperature conditions. We already have one valid experiment that shows you are wrong. The only complaint you can muster is the individual did not measure fluxes. That was not even part of the experiment. The whole goal of the experiment was to show a plate that is warmed by a heated plate will in turn cause the heated plate to reach a higher steady state temperature. This goal has been satisfied and you have offered zero evidence to counter it. You have your mindless declarations the test is “bogus” that will not get you far in the scientific world. It might satisfy DREMT but most people would need more evidence.
“It might satisfy DREMT…”
Obsessed.
Norman, any clown can type endlessly.
Learn some physics. Learn how to communicate coherently. Learn to appreciate reality.
JDHuffman
Maybe I should catalog your generic responses.
Okay you got a “clown” in there.
Then your play on Roy Spencer’s advice to you: “Learn some physics”
Meaningless from you. I have linked you to endless amounts of actual textbook physics. Look back at some posts.
“Learn to appreciate reality.” Yes I do this one. I appreciate that some blogger actually did a real experiment and posted the results. I see complaints from you about it, but I fail to see you doing one yourself.
“Learn how to communicate coherently” My post is quite coherent. This is another unsupportable declaration. You fail at doing any science but attack those who do actual science. Why do you think this makes you a credible source of information? DREMT might think it does, maybe Gordon Robertson. You have two nonscientific people who don’t need evidence or proof and make their own unfounded declarations supporting you.
“DREMT might think it does…“
Obsessed.
Norman, any clown can type endlessly.
Climate vs weather definition
Climate vs. Weather. Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere in a region and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variations, whereas climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval.
Where did you get those definitions from?
bob…”Where did you get those definitions from?”
Can’t you read and comprehend? Salvatore is stating the climate is a statistical measure of long term weather in a region.
When you alarmists talk of climate change, you use the phrase in reference to the entire planet, as if Earth has a global climate.
Not possible.
Climate is a local average of weather of the long term.
Perhaps YOU can’t comprehend. I asked him “Where did you get those definitions from?” and your answer provides no insight.
I vowed to be done with the moon argument. Then, this morning, a rhetorical question for Huffy (and the similarly dim) popped into my head:
If the earth’s orbital rate increased, so that it only took 24 hours to circle the sun, would that cause the earth to stop rotating about its own axis?
How close to the sun do you have to be, to orbit it in 24 hours.
As wild guess, closer than the Parker Solar Probe will get:
6.16 million kilometers from the sun.
There are 86400 seconds in 24 hour.
The diameter of sun is 1.391016 million km
1.40 million times pi is 4.398 million km in circumference
4.398 million / 86400 is 50.9 km per sec
And you orbit sun much faster than 51 km per sec
so possible to orbit sun in less than 24 hours of course at that distance it is very hot.
So sun radius, 695,508 km + Parker solar probe closest distance of
6.16 million = 6.855508 million km radius:
diameter: 13.71 million km
Times pi: 43 million
43 million / 86400 = 498.5 km/sec or 1,115,112.7 mph
“At closest approach, Parker Solar Probe will be hurtling around the sun at approximately 430,000 miles per hour! ”
And assume it’s Perihelion velocity which is faster than circular orbit at that distance. Oh and 430,000 mph = 192.2 km/sec
Let’s guess 2 million radius from middle of sun.
Circumference: 12.566 million km
/ 86400 = 145.44 km/sec
A guess somewhere around 1 to 2 million km from sun surface
Sun escape is 617.5 km/sec, there some some formula related escape for orbital speed.
Anyhow, Roche limit of Earth from the sun is 556,397 km from sun surface- so the Earth with 24 hour day would not be destroyed by tidal force.
And typical comet’s Roche limit from sun is 1,238,390 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
Anyhow very hot, but Earth [molten boiling lava Earth] could have 24 hour year. Though it would be tidally locked [with, I think, less rapidly boiling lava on the dark side of planet. And very difficult to get to and very difficult to leave in terms of delta-v needed [would require a orion nuclear rocket [or better].
https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+weather&form=EDGEAR&qs=DA&cvid=a3065b00211f4f949e11cee7862e1592&cc=US&setlang=en-US
What say you, gbaikie? Why would increasing earth’s orbital rate decrease its rotational rate? The two are separate motions.
yes, because of the direction of Earth’s spin.
oh wait, you asking a different question- so, no, I don’t think.
Mercury spin once every 176 days, if Mercury were at earth distance or gravity reduced due to sun losing mass. Mercury would still spin once every 176 earth days [or same amount of time- however you measure/express it]
Though what caused Mercury to have this spin rate, is [I believe/imagine] due to Mercury being tidally locked with Sun.
[I imagine this because is said to be “resonance”, or wiki says:
” In some cases where the orbit is eccentric and the tidal effect is relatively weak, the smaller body may end up in a so-called spinorbit resonance, rather than being tidally locked. … A well known case is the rotation of Mercury, which is locked to its own orbit around the Sun in a 3:2 resonance.”
Or if our moon had uniform mass distribution, it could also be in some resonance tidal lock like orbit.
Illiterate youngsters expecting an answer to a “rhetorical” question, obviously haven’t had enough education to know what “rhetorical question” means.
But, because they can type on the keyboard, they think they know all the answers.
Kids, these days….
The first question was rhetorical, and addressed to Huffy (and the similarly dim)………meaning I don’t expect an answer.
The second was specifically addressed to gbaikie (a bit smarter). I do expect an answer.
I’m sure gbaikie will be delighted to be referred to as “a bit smarter” than dim.
However, I don’t understand your renewed interest in this discussion since you have already put your name down on both the “spinner” and “non-spinner” lists. Unless you are being completely hypocritical and making a “black and white” decision on one or the other?
☺
gbaikie…”The Earth has about 10 tonnes of atmosphere per square meter which is warmed by the sun during the day. And a gram of air warmed by 1 C is one joule of heat. 10 tonnes is 10,000 kg or 10 million grams.
a gram of dirt is about is about 3/4 of joule of heat per 1 C and a gram of water is about 4 joules of heat per 1 C”.
That’s what I am wondering about. Why should solar energy not warm air directly rather than the air being heated by the surface only?
Gordon, you’re correct. Solar DOES directly warm the atmosphere. Ozone production is just one example. But CO2, as Mike Flynn always alludes to, also accepts higher energy photons than just 14.7 micron.
–gbaikie…”The Earth has about 10 tonnes of atmosphere per square meter which is warmed by the sun during the day. And a gram of air warmed by 1 C is one joule of heat. 10 tonnes is 10,000 kg or 10 million grams.
a gram of dirt is about is about 3/4 of joule of heat per 1 C and a gram of water is about 4 joules of heat per 1 C”.
That’s what I am wondering about. Why should solar energy not warm air directly rather than the air being heated by the surface only?–
Well I think the air is warmed directly in regards to Venus- or sunlight heats cloud droplets, droplets heat air.
To much less extent, I think sunlight warms and evaporates clouds on Earth, which in turn warms the air. Or Venus clouds are less reflective than earth clouds and clouds cover entire atmosphere, plus there is chemical reaction from sunlight regarding Venus clouds- as there is a chemical reaction of sunlight and Earth’s Ozone layer.
But climate energy budgets do claim Earth atmosphere is directly heat [or energy is absorbed by atmosphere- rather than “absorbed and re-radiated] So climate budgets seem to think a lot sunlight is absorbed by “atmosphere”- but I don’t think so or at least until it’s explain what part of atmosphere so doing all this absorbing of energy from the sun. It would matter a lot where in atmosphere [ie, elevation] it’s increasing the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
My renewed interest: After ~ 9 months of coming up with arguments, until today I never thought of the most obvious – keep rotation steady, and change orbital rate until the same side always faces the center.
*****
Black and white? Nope. Viewed from the sun, increasing earth’s orbital speed would, in fact, slow its rotational speed.
OTOH, when comparing the two motions WRT inertial space, one does not affect the other. I.e., even if you increase the earth’s orbital rate around the sun, its rate of rotation about its own axis stays the same relative to the stars.
OK, JD, one more challenge for you. I am truly curious how you will answer.
Suppose you have a moon in a highly elliptical orbit. The same face is toward the planet at closest approach each orbit (and the same face is always generally toward the planet).
According you your understanding of “orbit”, would this moon
1) have the same face always toward the planet, so that the same half is always visible from earth?
2) have all points within the moon move along ‘parallel’ paths, so that different faces are seen from the earth?
3) have stars move across the sky at a fixed rate (which is different from both (1) and (2) )
4) some other description?
Different statements you have made would suggest
Different statements you have made would suggest … different answers. ^
Tim, I expected trickery, but I didn’t expect you to respond way down here.
Maybe it was because you wanted to veer off in a new direction.
Your last comment indicated you were very confused about “translational motion”. I linked you to some descriptive information. So, we will start there.
Do you now understand that the racehorse is an appropriate “model” of orbital motion?
JD, Which way will your ‘non-rotating’ racehorse be facing on the elliptical track? For a circular track, all three answers are the same. For an elliptical track, all three are different.
I really was hoping you wouldn’t just duck the question. It exposes just which way you think, since you now have to choose among three competing interpretations of “orbiting” and “not rotating on its axis”.
But I suspect everyone pretty much knows by now that you really cannot provide anything beyond your simplistic rote answer. Your non-answer here pretty much confirms that.
Tim, as I mentioned, we need to keep our discussion on a logical path. If you keep jumping in all directions, it merely indicates you are trying to “muddy the waters’. And don’t start with the false accusations. I’m not the one with a history of debate tricks….
i am willing to answer all responsible questions, and I expect you to do the same. So following a logical order, it is your turn to answer a question. The question comes from your last comment upthread, before you skipped down here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325645
In that comment, you indicated your confusion about “translational motion”.
My question then was: Do you now understand that the racehorse is an appropriate “model” of orbital motion?
You won’t answer that simple question. You threw out diversionary questions like “which way will the horse be facing’. The direction of travel does NOT matter, Tim! If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine, just say so. No tricks.
My question is not a trick question. In fact, I’ll answer for you: “Yes, a racehorse running on an oval track is an appropriate “model” of orbital motion.”
So, my question to you now becomes: “Do you agree with my answer?”
(This is all about verifying that you actually understand orbital motion. We need that verification before moving on. We cannot proceed unless you understand the basic definitions.)
“Do you now understand that the racehorse is an appropriate model of orbital motion?
You wont answer that simple question.”
I have answered this repeatedly! I understand that the racehorse is an appropriate model for YOUR DEFINITION of orbital motion.
Do YOU understand that basically ONLY you uses your definition? You define an “orbit” as one pure translation around a path plus one pure rotation about the center of mass of the orbiting object. Everyone else prefers the cleaner definition of “orbit” as simply the purely translational part — the path taken by the center of mass of the moon/racehorse/orbiting object.
Do YOU understand how an elliptical orbit highlights the three possible interpretations above — all different. Only one can be correct, and you can’t seem to even understand the implications of the question.
Do YOU understand that if gravity were “turned off” the moon would continue to rotate once per month relative to the stars as it flew off along some straight line through space?
I have repeatedly answered your question. It is you who never answers mine. :-/
Tim, somehow you have managed to confuse yourself. Your claim (speaking about MY definition of orbiting) “You define an “orbit” as one pure translation around a path plus one pure rotation about the center of mass of the orbiting object.”
Please show me where I have ever defined orbiting as TWO motions. Orbiting is ONLY one motion.
(We can discuss your other confusion, after we clear this point.)
JD: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle…Yes the wagon is changing direction”
Just like a race horse changes direction by rotating on its own axis turning in the turns to keep facing forward in the backstretch. JD is hopelessly confused by JD’s own ever-changing failed wordsmithing and cartooning with no proper experimental evidence.
Nothing new, JD does this all the time. JD has great entertainment value, zero physics value. More humor please JD, the blog crowd enjoys laughing at you make a fool of yourself.
Say you are in an airplane flying due north in a straight line. If you draw a fixed line through the body of the plane, that line will remain parallel to its original direction all throughout its motion. Translation. You fly all around the world in that straight line and come back to where you started from. You just completed an “orbit”, and it was purely translational motion.
“You fly all around the world”
Changing direction as you go around. If you flew maintaining the straight line you mention aimed properly to intersect moon, will eventually hit the moon which is also rotating on its axis as it goes around changing direction keeping the same face facing forward just like a race horse.
P.S: the motion of the plane around the planet would appear as the moon in the left gif, not the right one.
If there’s a way to miss the point, Ball4 will find it.
Here’s another one. Imagine the entire Earth had one giant straight road running all around the equator. You start driving along the road. You keep going until you come back to the same point you started from. You have just “orbited” the planet in what surely nobody would have any problems describing as purely translational motion. The motion of the car would be as the moon in the left gif, not the right.
Or is somebody now going to say that the car would have to drive off into space in order to truly be moving in a straight line!? Is a car rotating on its axis in order to continue to drive along a straight road!? Where does this madness end?
“You keep going until you come back to the same point you started from.”
The car having rotated once about the car’s own axis to continue facing forward just like a horse on a race track, a toy locomotive on a circular track and the moon. The madness ends when the team accepts the observed facts.
So this is what you are saying to me, Ball4:
A car, driving along a straight road that runs around the Earths equator, needs to rotate on its axis (not the left/right axis, the car tilts up/car tilts down axis) in order to stay on the road going forward, rather than fly off into space.
This is what I’m saying to the team:
The car having rotated once about the car’s own axis to continue facing forward just like a horse on a race track, a toy locomotive on a circular track and the moon. The madness ends when the team accepts the observed facts.
OK. So, on Earth, rectilinear translation has no meaning, since the curvature of the Earth always means that no forward motion you make, even if keeping the orientation of a line through the body constantly parallel to north, for example, will ever be precisely straight.
Here’s what has relevant meaning on this Earth:
The car having rotated once about the car’s own axis to continue facing forward just like a horse on a race track, a toy locomotive on a circular track and the moon. The madness ends when the team accepts the observed facts.
So madness ENDS when I accept that a car driving along a straight road, needs to rotate on its axis (front to back) in order to continue to drive along a straight road.
Ball4, I’m a bit worried that your idea of madness ending might be most people’s idea of madness beginning. But I will give it a try, if it stops you repeating yourself.
No, the team does not need to accept that since a race horse in the straightaway does not rotate on its axis in order to face forward while running along a straight portion of the track.
Hmmm…but if the race course is an entirely straight track running all the way around the Earth’s equator, the poor exhausted horses will have nothing but straightaways to run in. Yet according to you they will still have rotated on their axes (vertically) once they complete that enormous lap. Don’t worry, I will let the madness end and see it your way.
“but if the race course is an entirely straight track running all the way around the Earth’s equator, the poor exhausted horses will have nothing but straightaways to run in. “
No, running the entire Earth equator means the horse is on a totally closed circular track (oblate a bit due Earth rotation) so the horse still has to rotate on its own axis in order to keep facing forward. Not so for a horse on Churchill Downs in those straightaways.
Yes, Ball4, I said I would see it your way. You can stop talking now.
Mission accomplished.
Yes, I feel 40% less mad already now I know that those horses are rotating vertically in order to complete the equator lap.
Horse on a race track.
In extremis: reduce the diameter of the race track bit by bit.
Eventually the race track has an infinitesimally small diameter.
Horse still follows the track.
The horse can now be seen by all to be rotating.
Excellent analysis. Unfortunately, you are talking to people uneducated in mathematics or science who have no concept of a limit.
Splendid Steve, first price for succinct.
… prize …
Steve, if we reduce you to an infinitesimally small diameter, do you even matter?
(You might want to learn some logic, especially as it involves “reality”.)
Confirmed – no concept of a limit. It seems you’ve never studied calculus.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=climate+verus+weather+definition&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=43874f0bbb6342f98f887b4ab8b1dd0f&cc=US&setlang=en-US
HERE IS WHER EIT CAME FROM BOBDESBOND.
Why do you have so much trouble responding to the correct comment?
Now – tell me which one of those links I should click on to see the definition you quoted.
des, your confirmation bias leads you astray, again.
I see you can only resort to nonsense comments without substance. Just say “I have never studied calculus so don’t understand the concept of a limit”. Why is it so difficult for you to utter the truth?
des, you may not have understood “confirmation bias”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
We were talking about your underwhelming science and maths education.
Obviously.
You, and others, should have studied harder….
I got an HD in 1st year Physics (where this stuff is learned) and a D in 2nd year. You?
I’m not familiar with “HD”, as a grade. A “D” was considered below average, barely passing.
A “D” is “distinction”. An “HD” is high distinction.
But of course, anyone with half an intellect could have figured that out, even those like yourself who have never been to uni.
Well that explains it des, you live upside down, so your grading system is upside down.
☺
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Australia
Nice irrelevant link.
Still waiting for your tertiary science qualifications …
Thanks des, but I can’t take much credit. Wiki did all the work.
And I’m glad you’re waiting. Maybe that will give you some purpose in life. Often people that have no purpose are grumpy, belligerent, and deny reality. Now you can feel like your doing something.
Wait as long as you want….
So it’s confirmed – you have no science or maths education. Which explains the original problem … you do not understand the concept of a limit.
des, you said you wanted to wait.
Now you’re digging your hole even deeper?
Oh, I guess you’re going to wait in your hole.
That’ll work.
I’ve waited through 4 cringeworthy issue-avoiding replies from you. Do you have even the remotest concept of giving a straight answer to a question? Or do you have that concept, but recognise when a straight answer must be avoided for the sake of self-preservation?
des, I will always answer responsible questions. But, you don’t have any such questions. You have an agenda, and the truth blocks your agenda. So you are out to pervert truth.
Now, keep digging that hole so you can wait in it.
I would have thought asking about the qualifications which permit you to make a scientific judgement would qualify as a “responsible question”. No – it is the oil-funded trolls like yourself who have the agenda. I am here only to represent science. You have no science. It is ignorant conservaturds who block the truth. You probably believe the earth was “created”.
des blurts out: “You probably believe the earth was ‘created’.”
des, did your hatred of reality happen by chance, or did you create it?
Confirmed – JDHuffman busted by Steve Richards.
Confirmed – horses running along a straight race track that circumnavigates the Earths equator are rotating on their own axes, vertically. Ball4 approved.
Confirmed Svante has NO understanding of physics.
Svante, if the horse and racetrack were “infinitesimally small”, it would not change the motion. The horse would still be orbiting, NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Changing scales makes no difference. But, keep announcing victory, it makes this even more fun when you fall flat on your face.
I mean, you could try the same thing with the horses on the equatorial straight track.
Reduce the diameter of the Earth bit by bit.
Eventually the Earth has an infinitely small diameter.
Horse still follows the track…no, hang on, that doesn’t work any more. A horse couldn’t be walking around an infinitesimally small sphere, just rotating around end over end, head over tail.
Oh well, guess that’s another one busted.
I predict they will get even funnier, as they get more desperate.
Kind of like a “Jonestown for Clowns”….
��
Well, that emoji didn’t happen. I was laughing. But I guess the joke is on me…
…for now.
This site won’t take some codes, such as superscripts.
test x2
You clearly enjoy talking to yourself. You even answer yourself back.
Des, I hate to have to prompt for an on-topic response, but do you still think Steve Richards has a point, or have you realized what he’s saying is a bit silly?
He is dead on correct. He has shown that as you reduce the orbital motion to zero, the rotation about one’s own axis remains.
Sure he hasn’t directly and conclusively proven that you all can’t separate orbital motion from axial rotation?
That’s right, he hasn’t proven that we can’t, because he did.
When an airplane is travelling at a constant speed & constant altitude, thus travelling in a circular path around the earth, while performing a continuous roll, can you analyse the two circular motions separately?
Just carry on with the horses on the equatorial straight track.
I stopped it earlier due to the obvious absurdity, but there’s a more serious point, if you actually wish to take it seriously like you for some reason do with the other example.
So you finish with an infinitesimal Earth. The horse is rotating around end over end, as I said, head over tail. However, it would not be rotating about its own center of mass. If you could picture it (and it is very silly) it would be las though the Earth was hurling the horse around in a circle by the legs. Meaning only that the center of the revolution of the horse would be the Earth itself, rather than the horses own cm (which is what you would be looking for).
And that debunks that idea (even further than JD Huffman has already pointed out). Sorry guys.
des believes> “He is dead on correct. He has shown that as you reduce the orbital motion to zero, the rotation about one’s own axis remains.”
des, he didn’t “show” any such thing. You just imagined it.
Reducing the size to “infinitesimally small” does NOT change anything, except the scale. Ever seen scaled maps of the Earth? Ever seen engineering drawings of a house?
You just see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe. Everything that does not fit your beliefs get thrown out.
That’s NOT science.
The kind of scientific argument made by Steve Richards goes WHOOSH, right over JD and DREMT’s heads.
Its the kind of argument made by Newton to invent calculus and to understand orbits, and by many others ever since.
But its wasted on Curly, Moe, and Larry, who lack the logic skills to benefit from it.
OK Nate.
Nate, I think they realized they were busted because their hand waving went into overdrive.
OK Svante.
“If you could picture it (and it is very silly) it would be las though the Earth was hurling the horse around in a circle by the legs. Meaning only that the center of the revolution of the horse would be the Earth itself, rather than the horses own cm (which is what you would be looking for).”
Gee, do you guys really lack the imagination to do this thought experiment?
In the original example, horse running around a track. Its cm moving in a circle.
Now make the cm circle’s radius go to zero.
Now the horse’s cm is stationary, but the horse is rotating around it.
We only need ONE example to illustrate the principle.
Oh, but Nate:
“You keep trying out new examples, but they really are the same in the end“
The examples are all the same, in the end, right? So you won’t mind that this one refutes Steve’s point even using his own logic.
I see no refuting, DREMT.
First, you get tangled in the weeds and horses legs.
In a thought experiment we ignore the unimportant details and think abstractly.
Second, if you want clarity, look at simplest and clearest example.
You are pathetic, Nate.
“Reducing the size to infinitesimally small does NOT change anything, except the scale. Ever seen scaled maps of the Earth? Ever seen engineering drawings of a house?”
No, idiot, the horse is not reduced in size, only the orbit.
“pathetic” Non sequitur.
When do you sleep, DREMT?
OK Nate. There, there.
OK DREMT.
The 3 Stooges Test Relativity
Starring Gordon, JD and DREMT
The boys are at the race track.
JD: Ok fellas get into that horse costume. Gordon youre the head, DREMT, youre the ass.
DREMT: Soitenly! Nyuk Nyuk.
Gordon: Hey, what’s the idea?
JD: Were gonna do a relativity thought experiment.
DREMT: Woo-woo-woo-woo!
JD: OK, nitwits. You guys are gonna run, and pretend youre running at the speed of light.
Gordon: That wont work, a horse cant run that fast.
DREMT: Yeah, our legsll melt, nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Gordon: and the tracks a circle is that rectilinear?
JD: Why I oughtano you knuckleheads, its a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
DREMT: I’m tryin’ to think, but nothin’ happens!
JD: Alright lets sympathize our watches.
JD: Ready, set, Get goin!
The boys start running.
DREMT: Woo-woo-woo-woo!
Gordon: We’re gettin’ no place fast
Suddenly the horse costume rips in two. The head and ass go in opposite directions. The boys run all the way around the track and crash into each other.
JD: You lamebrains! Slap-Slap
DREMT: HRRRRRRMPH! Oh, a wise guy, eh?
JD: Oh forget it. Relativity don’t woik!
Gordon: Yeah! Relativitys for imbeciles!
DREMT: That Einstein, I’ll moidalize him. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
As you can see from the definition weather is the day to day changes while climate is a slightly longer time interval.
Just like I said.
WHICH definition?? You have given me an entire page of links. Please link me to the definition which uses the word “slightly”. Make sure it comes from a climatologist or meteorologist.
Salvatore’s own definition of climate being a slightly longer time interval so Salvatore does have it right, same as Dr. Spencer’s black line in top post (30-year (1981-2010) average) of global weather temperature state:
“Climate is the statistics (usually, mean or variability) of weather, usually over a 30-year interval.”
Salvatore said “Weather is day to day changes, anything longer is climate.” He thinks that month-to-month variation is climate variation.
Yes, Salvatore has been wrong about that for years, incorrectly writing predictions for cooling in the climate when Salvatore is really predicting cooling in the weather for which AGW does have a nil impact.
I made my point.
What point was that? That you don’t know how to click on “Reply”?
From the first link on your page:
“climate is how the atmosphere ‘behaves’ over relatively LONG periods of time.”
“When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in LONG-TERM averages of daily weather.
The second link is the one you quoted from. Funny how you chose not to quote the part about climate being the average over a typical THIRTY YEARS, and replaced it with your own BS:
“Weather is day to day changes, anything longer is climate.”
Only a deceitful denier would deliberately change 30 years to 2 days.
Yes Salvatore, you made your point: weather is short term and climate is a slightly longer time interval as you write from your link:
“Climate is the statistics (usually, mean or variability) of weather, usually over a 30-year interval.”
Good point Salvatore, same as used in top post black line.
cheers!
I’ll take that as agreement that you got it wrong …. again …
I got it correct as you can see by reading the definitions but you in denial on this and fake AGW.
You again choose to ignore the THIRTY YEAR AVERAGE in the link you provided. Why is that?
30 year avg is fine and each year makes up a 30 year avg.
There have been 39 complete years of UAH data.
In that time, the change in the annual average has changed direction 21 times.
That means you are claiming that climate has changed 21 times in the past 39 years.
Why is Chrome telling me that this site is not secure?
Back click where it says, “not secure”.
As example, Amazon.com should be secure, if you are logged in.
“Back click”?? You mean take myself out of the site??
Well, actually right or left click – just click on area where says “not secure” on your chrome browser.
On mine, it’s has red triangle followed by “Not secure” which before URL address window/slot
That is with desktop, with my smartphone it doesn’t give such a message.
When I click on that I get two options – cookies and site settings. When I click on site settings, I see no option which is likely to fix the problem.
–Bobdesbond says:
October 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM
When I click on that I get two options cookies and site settings. When I click on site settings, I see no option which is likely to fix the problem.–
I doubt you can fix the problem- it’s a Roy and wordpress “problem”.
Instapudit says: connection is secure.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Watt’s up says: ‘your connection to this site is not fully secure”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Climate Etc says connection is secure
https://judithcurry.com/
NASAwatch says: not secure
Etc
But we know the software on this site is problem
Thanks gbaikie (I will be Bobdesbond’s manners)!
The first time we see YOUR manners on this site is in a game of oneupmanship.
The first time we see you go close to showing manners on this site is in a game of one-upmanship.
Jesus H Christ – it didn’t post the first time, then after the second post the first one appeared. Seriously – it’s time to use a new platform.
Lol.
Des, how about you pick another hobby which makes you less irritable. Maybe take up boxing or something so you can unleash your pent-up fury and limitless hatred on a harmless punching bag.
Wait for it, here it comes…
“…why don’t YOU pick another hobby…”
“Please show me where I have ever defined orbiting as TWO motions. Orbiting is ONLY one motion.”
You have always defined “orbit” this way. A purely translational motion in a circle around a planet plus a purely rotational motion around the center of mass relative to the ‘fixed stars’ IS IDENTICAL TO (mathematically and physically) to your “single” rotation around the planet.
* One pure translation of hte moon around of the earth is different from your “orbit”.
* One pure rotation of hte moon relative to the stars is different than your definition of “orbit”.
* The sum of these to motions is IDENTICAL to your definition of “orbit”.
If you disagree, show mathematically how they are different. Both will
Tim, you will need to give me a link to where I defined “orbiting” as being two different motions.
You need to stand by your claims, or you have no credibility, like several others.
JD writes: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction”
JD defined “orbiting” as being two different motions.
“…have no credibility, like several others.”
Correct JD, you “..have no credibility, like several others.”
JD in his own written words has defined “orbiting” as being two different motions.
no link, no credibility
The search function works on this blog JD; perhaps though you are not accomplished enough to use it similar to JD not being accomplished enough in physics to establish any credibility at all.
no link, no credibility, fluff ball.
And, your comments will be ignored until you produce. Your “interpretation” of what I stated has ZERO credibility.
So, spin it all you want. It won’t be credible, and I won’t be responding.
Because there is no response that credibly overturns what JD actually wrote. The internet does not forget.
Tim is correct, JD defined “orbiting” as being two different motions.
OK Ball4.
JD, suppose you walk from starboard to port across a ship as it moves East. At one level, you can call this two separate motions one east, and one north. Or you can call it a single motion toward the NE. Two ways of describing the same motion. Mathematically and physically, they get you from Point A to Point B in exactly the same way. I could say the motion is a combination of (4i)m/s + (3j)m/s and you could say the motion is 5 m/s @ 37degrees and we would BOTH BE RIGHT.
Your “orbit” is similar — it is a combination of a “pure translation” along a path around the planet and a “pure rotation” about the center of mass of the moon.
Your inflexibility to even consider a situation from different perspectives has put blinders on you and you are missing so much of the larger picture.
Quit spinning, clown!
Own up to your own words.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325862
It’s been several hours since I asked Tim for a link proving I had ever defined orbiting as TWO motions. He may respond later, but right now, it appears as if he is stumped.
I never know if clowns are confused, incompetent, dishonest, or some combination of the three.
But they’e ALWAYS funny….
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
October 20, 2018
Say you are in an airplane flying due north in a straight line. If you draw a fixed line through the body of the plane, that line will remain parallel to its original direction all throughout its motion. Translation. You fly all around the world in that straight line and come back to where you started from. You just completed an “orbit”, and it was purely translational motion.”
That’s a good example of how motion is relative. The plane curves WRT the stars, but not WRT the earth. Rotating and translating at the same time, depending on frame of reference.
Same idea as the horse on a track. The track turns, the horse turns. Neither turn relative to each other.
It’s OK Snape, you are still on both lists. Don’t worry.
So, being on only one list, I can assume you either don’t agree with, or don’t understand what I’m saying.
Consider a car timed at 80 mph by a police radar gun on the side of the road. If timed from a police car also moving (in the same direction), at say 60 mph, the same radar gun will show 20 mph, not 80.
This is reality, not theory.
Snape, I will be honest – I didn’t pay any attention to your comment. Sorry. I really couldn’t care less what you have to say.
But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t carry on, for others benefit, should they choose to take you seriously.
Any comment you preface with “I will be honest” is clearly a lie.
No, I really didn’t pay any attention to either of Snape’s comments, I don’t care what he has to say, but I do hope that he carries on regardless. Sorry if you find that hard to believe for some reason.
Then you felt the need to make a reply unrelated to his content, for the sole purpose of trolling.
I know, I know, DREMT, please stop trolling. Tsk, tsk.
Although in my defence, Snape is genuinely on both lists. He just isn’t a “black and white” thinker like some of you guys.
The black and white thinkers are on the denier side. You know – the people who believe a warm decade can’t have cold months and a cold decade can’t have warm months. The people who believe that all 120 months of the 1930s in the US were searing hot.
Oh, I see. “Deniers” are “black and white” thinkers.
As I’ve just explained with my example.
You didn’t get it. It would have taken introspection and self-criticism though, so I see why you didn’t.
Your denial, by its very nature, involves a lack of introspection and self-criticism. It involves you putting up the armour and refusing to let through any idea which contradicts a doctrine based on your self-interest. You never invoke science, you can’t, only rhetoric and bluster. Thinking involves learning, and you have given no indication of a desire to learn anything new about science since joining this site from out of the e*t*h*e*r.
Interesting. But the only person you could know that much about would be yourself.
You seem to believe you are a closed book. And of course you are kidding yourself.
Bobdesbond, you might benefit from a little self-awareness, no? How many of these endless head to head personal remark discussions do you get drawn into every single time you comment? Try to focus on yourself for once not the person you already assume is a troll (so why do you feed it!?)
You even come across tetchy in a conversation where gbaikie is just trying to help you use the internet entirely out of the goodness of his heart.
How many of these endless head to head personal remark discussions do YOU get drawn into every single time you comment?
Lol.
Last word.
This video should end the pointless debate about the Moon rotating.
If the Moon did not rotate you would see all its sides from the Earth.
Here is a quick and simple proof. The Ferris Wheel. The cars do not rotate on their own axis as they orbit around the center of the wheel. The are always aligned the same way. When the cars do not rotate and you view from the middle you will see the heads of the riders looking down, the back of the riders as they move up, the bottom of the car when you look up and the front of the riders when you turn around. All views will be visible from the person observing in the center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4c_1nns3Ds
I do not expect reality to convince JDHuffman, Gordon Robertson, or DREMT. This should convince any rational or logical human.
Norman, you are amazing. You have a creative mind, but you waste your talent on nonsense.
The Ferris wheel seats are suspended on axels. The axels are “orbiting”, but the seats are being pulled by gravity. They cannot follow the orbiting motion of the axels, so they must rotate about the axels. So you are seeing TWO motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on a fixed axis”.
That is what we would see if the Moon actually rotated on its own axis.
JDHuffman
Sorry the wheel seats are not rotating at all. The purpose of the bearing in the axles is to prevent the seats from revolving with the wheel and dumping the people on the ground as they go upside down at top of wheel.
The Moon is a body free to rotate in any way. It can spin or not spin. Tidal locking does not mean that the Earth’s gravity holds the Moon from rotation like a connected rod. It is a way to slow the rotating object down that is all. If Gordon Robertson’s idea were correct the Moon would have to orbit at the same speed as the Earth Rotates or about 24 hours.
The axle is to allow the seats to be disconnected from the assembly. The have their own axis of rotation. The axles connecting the seats to the wheel body is not the axis of rotation for the seats. You can design a cage Ferris Wheel and the cages will rotate. If you had the cages motor driven to rotate at exactly the same rate as the orbited around the same side would always face the center (just like the Moon).
Again Norman, very creative, but very WRONG!
The wheel seats are rotating around the supporting axle.
Tidal locking means one side of the Moon is “locked” facing Earth. That’s why it is not “rotating on its axis”.
The rest is just blah-blah.
So you are right, and all the scientists are wrong. Is that right?
JD’s favorite websites:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
http://americanbigfootsociety166.weebly.com/
You know the clowns are wrong because all they have are tricks. The have NO science, just misrepresentations, false allegations, and insults.
Nothing new.
Referring to “insults” just after you refer to “clowns”.
Are you really that opaque to self-scrutiny?
Lol.
des, maybe you are not aware of my definition of “clowns”.
Clown: Someone who demonstrates they do not understand physics, yet claims they do.
Super-Clown: A clown that uses misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults, to make up for their lack of knowledge.
No one has been able to prove me wrong, in my explanations of physics. They have to use flurries of tricks, because they’ don’t have the facts. A perfect example, ongoing, is Tim Folkert’s attempt to misrepresent my definition of “orbiting”. He is rapidly descending into super-clown status.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326011
JDHuffman
YOU: “No one has been able to prove me wrong, in my explanations of physics.”
That is one false statement! Many have proven you wrong on many levels of your ignorance of any actual physics. You do not accept anything that proves you wrong so it is a circular argument.
E. Swanson’s experiment proves your are wrong when you claim, falsely, a heated plate and a nonheated plate in the configuration will reach the same steady state temperature. The test proves you wrong then you complain because he did not measure fluxes and call it a “bogus” experiment. You have not come even close to proving this absurd and distorted statement.
Here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view
Look at page 588 Chapter 5 section 5 and read the first paragraph. This proves you are wrong but you will not accept it. So please do not lie and distort the truth and say “No one has been able to prove me wrong, in my explanations of physics.”
JDHuffman
If you look at the link to the textbook on Heat Transfer the actual book page is 569. The 588 is the page number in the box that shows up.
So either way you should be able to find it. These words will reflect off your mind like you think radiant energy does when it reaches a warmer body (wrong). The only one the three that has hope to understand this is DREMT but I don’t have much hope. Gordon Robertson is completely out of touch with any science and thinks it is all fake except for fringe lunatics that feed him rotten meat.
The textbook quote: “In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there.”
Okay that proves you are wrong. I give you a Ferris wheel. Gravity makes sure the seats cannot rotate and yet you think (falsely) that the seats rotate. Why you think this only you know. No logic or reason will reach your mind. It will just bounce off like you think IR bounces of any object that is warmer than a cold IR source. That statement is pure pseudoscience and supported only by your belief. Direct experiment shows you are completely wrong but nothing will change your beliefs.
Bless you, Norman! You tried appealing to my ego this time, rather than the usual insult approach.
Some try that, occasionally.
No Norman, it does NOT prove me wrong. It just proves, once again, you are willing to distort, pervert, or misunderstand anything to support your beliefs.
The textbook quote…
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there.”
…refers to a special case. That’s why the phrasing is “can be absorbed”, rather than “will be absorbed”. In real world situations, the photons emitted by the “cold” body will vary considerably. Some may have enough energy to be absorbed by the “hot” body. But, those photons will NEVER be able to raise the temperature of the “hot” body.
The textbook is right. You just can’t understand it.
With your silly example of the Ferris wheel, the seats are definitely rotating on the axels. Just buy the toy Ferris wheel, and glue the seats to the axels, and see what happens….
JD
You have been proven wrong every time. You are just too self-obsessed to see it.
EVERY time, des?
Wow, that sounds like a lot. It shouldn’t be too hard to find just one example then, should it?
Indeed. Just look at the current thread.
All bluster and no substance, des.
You didn’t tell me you were a “PhD”….
JDHuffman
Again you are wrong and showing why it is not possible to prove you wrong. You can’t understand a direct statement from a science textbook dealing with just heat transfer.
YOU: “refers to a special case. Thats why the phrasing is can be absorbed, rather than will be absorbed. In real world situations, the photons emitted by the cold body will vary considerably. Some may have enough energy to be absorbed by the hot body. But, those photons will NEVER be able to raise the temperature of the hot body.
The textbook is right. You just cant understand it.”
NO JDHuffman, it does not refer to a “special case”. It depends upon the material the hotter body is made of. I will give you a list maybe that will help (not likely)>
http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~dw/projects/DW4229_LHC_detector_analysis/calculations/emissivity2.pdf
If the warm object is made of highly polished aluminum it will absorb very little IR from cold or hot object. If it is made of graphite it will absorb nearly all the IR from a cold or hot object. That is what the “can” is about. It depends upon the material the hot object is made of. That is all.
Yes the photons of the cold body will raise the temperature of a heated body. They will NOT raise the temperature of a non heated hot object but this energy will slow down the cooling rate. You know less than nothing.
If you glue the seats of a toy Ferris wheel it no longer has an axis of rotation. Gravity prevents the seats from rotating when they are free to rotate. You see all sides. If the seats were to rotate (via mechanical motor) you would have the same effect if the seats were orbiting or not, the people inside would get dumped in rotating seats if orbiting or not orbiting. You are so wrong and should give it up. Persisting in your nonsense does make you a complete babbling idiot. Again you are so dumb reason is not possible with you.
Suggesting ideas is valuable to science. Persisting in ideas when proven wrong makes you a foolish person. You are that foolish person.
Norman, I just caught your last typing practice before I was about to sign off for the evening. It was another comedy special. Thanks!
You were already confused by the textbook, so the table of emissivities probably confused you even more. No, photons from a cold body cannot warm a hotter body. But, I enjoy all of your humorous efforts to pervert physics.
And, if you glued the seats to their axels, the seats would always remain in the same position, as viewed from the center of the wheel. They would not be rotating on the fixed axis. So, any one seat would be like the Moon, orbiting, but not “rotating on its own axis”.
Have you ever consider writing comedy science-fiction?
JDHuffman
You seem to lack logical thought process and just make stuff up.
As I stated, not possible to debate science with you.
Let us stick to the simple topic of Ferris wheel seats and rotation.
The Ferris Wheel is motionless but an individual seat is able to rotate powered by a motor. You have a box of cookies in the seat. As the seat rotates at some point the cookies will fall out. Regardless of the rate of rotation, as long as the seat rotates the cookies will fall out at some time. This is a non orbiting rotation case. Add logic (which you don’t have) and a dose of rational thought. Now start the Ferris Wheel rotating so that the seats orbit around the center. If the seats does not rotate the cookie box will never fall out. If the seat rotates at any speed the cookies will fall out at some point.
The seats of a Ferris wheel DO NOT ROTATE. When you illogically and irrationally believe they do you are a beyond ability to reason.
You persist in being a dork and I am not sure why. Do you have any logical thought process at all?
Norman, read my words again, out loud. Get someone to explain them:
“With your silly example of the Ferris wheel, the seats are definitely rotating on the axels. Just buy the toy Ferris wheel, and glue the seats to the axels, and see what happens.
Also:
“And, if you glued the seats to their axels, the seats would always remain in the same position, as viewed from the center of the wheel. They would not be rotating on the fixed axis. So, any one seat would be like the Moon, orbiting, but not ‘rotating on its own axis'”
Or, don’t understand the simple explanations, and type out more misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults, indicating how stupid you are.
Your choice….
JDHuffman
You are so dumb you are unable to understand my point.
You make the idiotic claim that the Ferris Wheel seats are rotating (not your dumb irrelevant glued example) under the normal conditions of this ride. I am saying you are an illogical dork for not understanding this is not at all correct. I gave you an easy example to prove your error and yet your are too damn stupid to understand it. Why are you this dumb?
The cookie box sitting in a Ferris Wheel seat does not fall out as it goes around because the seats are NOT rotating as they orbit around the center.
The Moon is NOT glued to the Earth DORK! It is a dork example of your stupid posts that never end. Because you can have a similar state if you prevent seats from rotating (glued) you have removed the axis of rotation. They are not free to rotate on any axis and will just revolve around the center as all other parts to the wheel. The Moon is free to rotate. Tidal locking does not hold it in place you stupid dork! Learn even a little or try to think. As of now you are just being stupid on purpose to get a childish insult from me then you get all excited. What are real dork you are. Get lost idiot!
“The cookie box sitting in a Ferris Wheel seat does not fall out as it goes around because the seats are NOT rotating as they orbit around the center.“
The cookie box sitting in a Ferris Wheel seat does not fall out as it goes around BECAUSE the seats ARE rotating as they orbit around the center. If the seats were unable to rotate, the cookie box would fall out.
Throw a fit until the end of time, but that is the reality.
“Or, don’t understand the simple explanations, and type out more misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults, indicating how stupid you are.
Your choice….”
Poor Norman chose to be stupid, again!
“The Ferris Wheel is motionless but an individual seat is able to rotate powered by a motor. You have a box of cookies in the seat. As the seat rotates at some point the cookies will fall out. Regardless of the rate of rotation, as long as the seat rotates the cookies will fall out at some time. This is a non orbiting rotation case.”
Set the motor to rotate the seat at the exact same rate that the Ferris Wheel itself completes one revolution, only make the seat rotate in the opposite direction of rotation to the way the Ferris Wheel itself moves. This is a non orbiting rotation case. Set the motor running. The cookies will fall out. Now put the cookies back in, when the seat is upright again, and start the Ferris Wheel. The cookies don’t fall out even though the seat is rotating.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I like your thought process. Yes if you rotate the seat in the opposite direction of the wheel revolution at the same rate the wheel is spinning the cookies will not fall out. Similar if the seat is not rotating.
The thing JDHuffman cannot understand is that you can get the same effect with different processes. If you eliminate the axis of rotation of a seat it will behave the same as if rotates once on its axis per rotation. If you spin the seat backwards once per rotation the effect is the same as if the seat were not rotating.
Since JDHuffman rejects experimental proof it is not worth the effort to build a little Ferris wheel with seats that are self powered. I would get seats spinning at different rates and not at all. He could see the seats spinning while not orbiting. Then I would start the wheel moving. One seat is set to rotate at the same rate the wheel spins. He would see that the same side of the seat always faces the center even though it is rotating. He could have one seat glued unable to rotate on its axis and it would seem the same as the seat rotating one per wheel rotation. The only way to tell which one was rotating was to stop the wheel. If it had a chance to change his view it might be worth the effort. The way he attacks the very valid experiment by E. Swanson makes it seem a complete waste of time.
Norman, I am glad you like the thought process, but there is still something you are not getting. Why are you saying, for instance:
“Yes if you rotate the seat in the opposite direction of the wheel revolution at the same rate the wheel is spinning the cookies will not fall out. Similar if the seat is not rotating.”
What do you mean by, “if the seat is not rotating”? Norman, if the motor is doing the work, or if you leave gravity to do the work, it is the same. The seat IS rotating.
And Norman, if you “eliminate the axis of rotation of a seat”, then the seat has no axis to rotate around. So it cannot possibly be rotating around that axis.
“One seat is set to rotate at the same rate the wheel spins.“
In the same direction of rotation as the wheel?
Norman, think about it. Your cookies will fall out with or without the wheel spinning.
Norman, whenever you can’t understand something, you just start banging on your keyboard, in maniacal frustration.
It’s really quite simple to understand:
And, if you glued the seats to their axels, the seats would always remain in the same position, as viewed from the center of the wheel. They would not be rotating on the fixed axis. So, any one seat would be like the Moon, orbiting, but not “rotating on its own axis”.
…and dont forget, Norman, if you immediately put the cookie box back in the seat each time it falls out, you will have to do it twice as often with the wheel spinning as you do when the wheel is stationary, and the motor is rotating your seat.
Norman is such a clown. He believed the Ferris wheel was going to end the debate!
“This video should end the pointless debate about the Moon rotating.”
“Here is a quick and simple proof. The Ferris Wheel.”
But, now he must have figured out the Ferris wheel proves him wrong. The Ferris wheel exhibits both motions–“orbiting” and “rotating on a fixed axis”. Norman is wrong, again.
Nothing new.
At least he knows how to type….
JDHuffman
The seats are not rotating. As I stated before, reasoning with you, logical thought and scientific debate are not possible.
I stand with the Monty Python argument skit. You are just about contradiction.
Read up on “tidal locking”. You don’t understand the concept and it I type more than 10 words explaining it you tell me I am rambling. You are clueless to what it means.
Norman, you had never heard of “tidal locking” before this Moon debate started. Now you believe you are an expert on the topic.
See my definition of “clowns”.
JDHuffman
Your point is not meaningful. The difference between you and myself is I am willing to learn and understand science material. If I get it wrong I will correct it and continue to improve my understanding.
Same with heat transfer. While you hold on your your ignorant beliefs about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I read up on it from valid science sources until I am able to understand what it means.
You hold a false view, not even supported by Clausius himself, and use this to create a false view of radiant heat transfer that you will only find support for on PSI or Postma.
I have read up on what tidal locking means and can understand it. You do not read up on it and do not understand the concept.
Like I stated. Debating science with you is a waste of time. You think valid experimental science is pseudoscience but you accept the actual pseudoscience of people like Postma.
Norman, what a perfect example of “misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults”.
See my definition of “super-clowns”.
JDHuffman
Like I stated. Debating science with you is a waste of time.
Now Norman, we both know it’s not really “debating science”.
For you, it’s just more typing practice. For me, it’s learning things about human psychology I never knew. For example, I never realized people would be so stupid, trying to appear smart!
JD … Can I call you Dunning, Mr Kruger?
That must be because you don’t have anything intelligent to type.
JD won’t get it since it does not involve rubber bands, trampolines and diving boards.
And Gordon? Well, apparently you have to include some discussion on strengthening “groin muscles” for him to understand. (yup….groin muscles….do a search)
JD won’t get it since it involves physics and common sense.
But … not sure about your issue with groin muscles. I have to stretch my adductors and psoas after extended sitting due to my back problems. Don’t know why you are air-quoting them.
des believes: “JD wont get it since it involves physics and common sense.”
That’s just your opinion, des. You have no instance where my physics has been wrong. Beliefs are NOT science, they are often the foundation for a false religion.
There is no instance where you BELIEVE your physics has been wrong. But as you say, “beliefs are NOT science, they are often the foundation for a false religion.”
des, yes you can twist and spin, endlessly.
But the race horse does not “rotate on its own axis” as it runs the racetrack, yet you believe it does.
You continue to state your BELIEF.
Yes des, I do tend to openly acknowledge reality.
You are welcome to join at any time.
Does this ‘reality’ involve a fictitious sky daddy?
Very convoluted, mixed-up, and illogical there, des.
Norm,
Great example of curvilinear translational motion.
Nice post. They won’t get it.
OK SGW.
The ferris wheel seat experiences “curvilinear translation” and is not rotating with respect to the inertial reference frame.
Curvilinear translation is illustrated here:
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7808325/25/images/3/Translation+(Linear+Motion).jpg
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
The objects follow a curvilinear path but do NOT rotate. This concept is hard to understand by those with single brain cells.
Another definition of translation:
“all points on an object move the same distance, in the same direction, and at the same time”
[https://www.slideshare.net/betatronx/2-linear-kinematics-i]
The first link above was supposed to be a jpg file. Let’s try this link (click on image to enlarge):
https://tinyurl.com/ya52saem
The ferris wheel seat appears not to be rotating, with respect to the inertial reference frame.
I should add that single brain cell people get confused. The axle that the ferris wheel seat is connected to, is fixed to the rotating ferris wheel. So the seat does rotate wrt the rotating axle, but once again, that is the incorrect reference frame to describe its motion. The motion of the seat must described wrt the inertial reference frame, and that seat does not rotate wrt the inertial reference frame. The seat is experiencing curvilinear translational motion.
Poor dumb amoebas.
Hmm, yes, indubitably, ra-ther..indeed, sir, the Ferris wheel seat appears not to be rotating, with respect to the inertial reference frame.
China Wants to Replace Streetlights With a Trio of Artifical Moons
If it works, the plan could save the city of Chengdu hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a23903386/china-moons-reflective-satellites-street-lights/
I don’t know much about Chengdu
Wiki:
“It is one of the three most populous cities in Western China, the other two being Chongqing and Xi’an. As of 2014, the administrative area houses 14,427,500 inhabitants, with an urban population of 10,152,632. At the time of the 2010 census”
Was looking at climate:
“Rainfall is common year-round but is the greatest in July and August, with very little of it in the cooler months. Chengdu also has one of the lowest annual sunshine totals nationally, with less sunshine annually than much of Northern Europe, and most days are overcast even if without rain. This is especially so in the winter months, when it is typically interminably grey and dreary, compounding the poor air quality. ”
So something like Seattle or Germany.
It seems the clouds will interfere with the “moonlight”
Presentation by Professor Valentina Zharkova
When: Wednesday 31st October, from 6:00 PM 7:30 PM
Where: 55 Tufton Street, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
“This approach also predicts the modern grand minimum upcoming in 2020-2055. By utilising the two principal components of solar magnetic field oscillations and their summary curve, we extrapolate the solar activity backwards one hundred millennia and derive weaker oscillations with a period of 2000-2100years (a super-grand cycle) reflecting variations of magnetic field magnitude.”
https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/10/19/climate-and-the-solar-magnetic-field/
Linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
So she has discovered a “super-grand” cycle with period 2000-2100 years, in which the upswing of the cycle lasts 500 years and the downswing lasts 500 years. Interesting arithmetic.
Interesting that this obvious flaw has been glossed over by posters. Apparently when you desperately want a theory to be true, you are prepared to shut out the problems.
des, do you suppose you just do not understand cycle juxtapositioning?
Do explain oh uneducated maths master.
Now, where have you demonstrated ANY ability to learn?
A discussion I had recently. GBAIKIE, if her solar forecast is correct we our at the start of very long cold period. Already the trend has been down for the past few years. I have more to say below.
It is a shame how much energy fake AGW theory has taken away from real discussions about climate change. A waste since CO2 has ZERO to do with the climate.
Which magnetic fields influence the climate?? The solar/geo magnetic fields. Why? Because they moderate UV light/Near UV light which effects global surface oceanic temperatures, they moderate galactic cosmic rays which moderate global cloud /snow coverage and major volcanic activity, the magnetic fields also moderate EUV light which in turn effects the atmospheric circulation patterns and cloud and snow coverage.
I assert the solar and geo magnetic fields DO determine the climate. The reason it is not apparent is because most of the time the duration and degree of magnitude change of the fields is to small and many times they do not move in sync. This time however they are both weakening rather dramatically and moving in sync so the chances of more apparent climatic effects is on the rise.
Bob your assertion that it is just TSI is entirely wrong. TSI varies inversely within itself meaning the whole TSI spectrum does not EVEN move in unison with a weakening or strengthening sun. The sum change being so small that TSI alone can not impact the climate to any significant degree which you keep saying. Yes TSI has maybe a .2c effect upon the climate at most. Any additional climatic changes go well beyond TSI itself.
As far as supporting data the Dalton and Maunder solar minimums supply some supporting evidence but the geo magnetic field back then was stronger then it is now and the compounding effect was less then what it will be now.
I say the missing part of the puzzle is the geo magnetic field strength and orientation meaning the location of the magnetic poles which will direct galactic cosmic rays to certain latitudes where by they would be much more effective in cloud creation and lower latitude major volcanic activity.
I say how fast the geo magnetic field weakens going forward is going to be a big factor in what happens to the climate. How weak does that have to become ? I would say at levels it has achieved in the past that took the field to the point of approaching a geo magnetic excursion. It is probably above the levels that would be associated with magnetic field excursions.
<em?"TSI varies inversely within itself"
WTF does that even mean??
Any number is DIRECTLY proportional to itself.
What I meant was when solar activity decreases the visible light portion of the TSI spectrum actually increases opposite UV wave lengths of light or EUV light.
Then why didn’t you say that? Your original comment doesn’t give the slightest hint that this was what you were trying to say.
–Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 21, 2018 at 5:45 AM
A discussion I had recently. GBAIKIE, if her solar forecast is correct we our at the start of very long cold period. Already the trend has been down for the past few years. I have more to say below.–
I think her presentation: Wednesday 31st October, from 6:00 PM 7:30 PM and at 55 Tufton Street, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
could be interesting.
I am interested in various forecast of solar activity and in terms space exploration even though I think the moon is priority, further understanding of sun is arguable as important.
Yes it will be interesting.
“JDHuffman
October 20, 2018
Again Norman, very creative, but very WRONG!
The wheel seats are rotating around the supporting axle.”
*********
The Ferris Wheel and assembly rotate WRT the ground. The cage rotates WRT the assembly…….meaning it DOES NOT rotate relative to the ground.
***
Place a piece of paper on a table. With a pencil, and a ruler constantly aligned to the tables edges, draw a line.
While doing so, rotate the paper 360 degrees – you will end up having drawn a circle.
Q: Did the pencil follow a straight path or did it rotate?
a) It followed a straight path WRT the table and ruler.
b) it rotated WRT the paper.
*****
Norman is arguing for a)
Huffy is arguing for b)
Ooops! A circle is drawn by keeping the pencil still as you turn the paper. With the pencil moving, I’m guessing some sort of arc is drawn.
(Thinking about this while still in bed)
Same idea, regardless. Huffy is arguing that the pencil and table are rotating, not the piece of paper.
I did not think people would have difficulty with limits in my previous description, but I have modified it, which may help (or not!).
Horse on a race track.
In extremis: reduce the diameter of the race track bit by bit.
Eventually the race track has a small diameter of about 4 metres or 13 feet.
Horse still follows the track.
If we move away from the horse/track by a few miles, we will still be above to see the horse rotating through 360 degrees without noticing its physical forwards motion.
The horse can now be seen by all to be rotating.
If you can not see it in your minds eye, try changing the size of the circle/track, and your distance from the horse/track.
You will find a size and range where you can see the horse rotating and not see any forward movement.
I did not think you would have any problem understanding or accepting the refutations…oh no, wait, I did.
Steve, if you are reducing the track size, but not the horse size, you are perverting reality. Either scale both, which does not change the physics, or change neither.
But, maybe you don’t want to see reality….
Why would I want to scale both? That would have no effect at all.
To demonstrate the concept, I scaled the part (track) that would illustrate the effect.
The fact that normal people can understand the concept and you can not is very telling.
To continue flogging the dead horse, does your first sentence above indicate that you understand the concept but resist the explanation because it is opposite to what you originally thought?
A lot of people with vested interests in a view point or ‘theory’ are very resistant to change because they can not face being wrong.
But who can say they have never changed their views when new evidence comes along?
Steve, your idea has been refuted EVEN using the exact same flawed logic you use in the first place.
Steve says: “Why would I want to scale both? That would have no effect at all.”
That’s exactly my point, Steve. You believe you have found a trick to prove pseudoscience.
But tricks do NOT prove pseudoscience.
If the wheels on your car are reduced in diameter by a factor of 1000, but the rest of the car remains the same, will your car still function? Does that “prove” automobiles don’t really work?
The issue here is to allow people of limited imagination to understand a new view point.
No one mentioned science or pseudoscience wrt the horse on a track. only you.
You may posit that automobiles do not really work, but I for one, will be riding mine tomorrow on my commute to the station.
I just noticed this from you: “The wagon, from outside the circle, would appear to be rotating on its own axis”
So you do ‘get it’, you are just trolling.
Bye.
Steve, if a “new view point” is invalid, then it falls into the category of pseudoscience.
And, I didn’t “posit that automobiles do not really work”. My point was that if the wheels were drastically reduced in size, that would not be “proof” that automobiles can’t function.
And yes, a child’s wagon pulled in a large circle would “appear” to be rotating on its own axis, as viewed by an uneducated person.
“The issue here is to allow people of limited imagination to understand a new view point.”
He means dumb@$$es.
OK SGW.
OK, DREMT.
And if that’s the best you can do, might as well stop posting altogether.
OK Nate.
Steve,
I warned you about these brick-wall deniers.
steve…”If we move away from the horse/track by a few miles, we will still be above to see the horse rotating through 360 degrees without noticing its physical forwards motion.
The horse can now be seen by all to be rotating.”
Before passing judgement on the mindsets of others perhaps you could examine your own.
Even in a smaller diameter track, the horse is not ROTATING ABOUT ITS CENTRE OF GRAVITY. It can be argued that it is rotating about the centre of the track but it is actually translating with rectilinear and curvilinear motion.
If the horse was rotating about its COG, it’s tail would be turning about its head AS IT RAN IN A STRAIGHT LINE.
You may seen that on ice when a skater takes a spill while moving forward. He/she moves in a straight line while their body turns on an axis about his/her centre of gravity.
The horse is rotating about its COG in the turns so its tail would be turning with its head but NOT AS IT RAN IN A STRAIGHT LINE down the stretch.
All caps never lie.
FLUFFBALL DOESN’T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT ORBITAL MOTION.
All caps never lie.
“It can be argued that it is rotating about the centre of the track but it is actually translating with rectilinear and curvilinear motion.”
Sigh. A horse running a track can only translate in the straight stretches of the track. It does not perform a curvilinear translation on the turns. It rotates about it’s own axis 180 degrees on each turn. If it did not rotate, it would be running ass-backwards on the backstretch.
Here’s a suggestion for our three resident amoebas.
Get a toy horse and pierce it with a toothpick or 6d finishing nail. Set out a race course on your kitchen table. Grasp the nail (or toothpick) between your fingers and start a race at the straight stretch with the horse always facing forwards. When you get to the first turn (assume CCW race), you HAVE to rotate the toothpick between your fingers CCW continuously throughout the turn to keep the horse facing forward along the direction of travel. When you spin an object about its center of gravity with a toothpick, it’s rotating on its own axis! Hello! McFly!
I did not think people would have difficulty with the refutation of Steve Richards comment in my previous description, but I have modified it, which may help (or not!).
Horse on a track running all the way around the Earth’s equator.
In extremis: reduce the diameter of the Earth bit by bit.
Eventually the Earth has a small diameter of about 4 metres or 13 feet.
Horse still follows the track (we will have to pretend gravity still works despite the tiny Earth).
If we move away from the Earth by a few miles, looking down from above the North Pole, straight down, we will still be above to see the horse rotating through 360 degrees without noticing its physical forwards motion.
The horse can now be seen by all to be rotating (more accurately, revolving). However, the axis of rotation (revolution) is a point running through the center of the Earth. The horse is not rotating around its own center of mass.
If you can not see it in your minds eye, try changing the size of the circle/track, and your distance from the horse/track.
You will find a size and range where you can see the horse not rotating around its center of mass.
If you continue to play around with the size of the Earth, compared to the horse, in your mind’s eye, and think about the motion of the horse around the Earth…then replace the horse with a moon, for example, you should be able to work out that the motion of the horse/moon around the Earth would be like the moon on the left, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Dr. Spencer, on your chart you use an arbitrary 1981 to 2010 period for the average temperature. That period starts at a trough and ends at a peak, and averages out a period of an upward trend in temperatures. Temperatures don’t follow an upward trend, they at best “step” based upon El Ninos and La Ninas. Have you ever considered using the average for the period that starts at the peak on an El Nino and ends at the start of the next El Nino? Using 1997 to 2015 would give a more comprehensive understanding of temperatures with the average period based upon a natural cycle instead of an arbitrary time period. Just a thought.
The choice of baseline period makes no difference to the trend. It shifts ALL values up or down by the same amount.
Des
I don’t share your view when applied to station sets with elements having very different lifetimes.
Because you have to calculate your anomalies station by station before you average them into a grid, and then into days, months, years etc.
But in order to calculate, for a station, anomalies wrt a given reference period, you need data in it provided by the station: the station’s liefetime must (1) encompass the reference period, and (2) still have enough data (some stations are interrupted over longer periods).
If it lacks the data, you have to exclude it.
Thus, generating, e.g. out of GHCN, anomalies wrt different periods, you will obtain different station subsets, and that obviously leads to the generation of somewhat different time series.
In the case of UAH, you are right, as UAH’s 2.5 degree grid is nearly complete from dec 78 till now, and thus moving the reference period can’t change so much.
(Trying again)
Anomalies are first calculated on the gridded data, not the station data.
Des
“Anomalies are first calculated on the gridded data, not the station data.”
Where do you have that information from? Sorry, but this is wrong.
Please consider two simple grid examples.
1. One station in a great town, suspected to have a big UHI bias; one 50 km away, in a rather cool rural corner.
If you average the 2 stations’ absolute values and then compute the grid’s anomaly, you will integrate the UHI bias into your anomalies.
2. One sta5tion at the sea, and one 50 km away in the mountain at 1500 m altitude, both rural.
In both cases, you will produce for both stations a reference period completely different from what you would obtain by first generating separate anomalies, and then averaging them into the grid.
OK?
WMO says:
https://tinyurl.com/yczsc7ew
svante…”WMO says:
Climate normals are presently updated once every 30 years, and the current official climate normal period is 1961-1990. The resulting averaged data are called WMO Climatological Standard Normals. However, rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are changing the Earths climate much faster than before”.
Absolute tommy-rot.
There is no proof that rising concentrations of CO2 are changing ‘the Earth’s climate’.
For one, this statement lacks scientific rigour. What is ‘THE’ Earth’s climate? There is no such thing, so the idiots at the WMO are engaging in propaganda. That’s all they are: a political body like the IPCC.
Secondly, choosing a narrow and mixed range of 1960 – 1990 favours warming. The 60s featured cooler temperatures as did part of the 70s. As Kristian and Bob Tisdale have demonstrated, any subsequent warming is more a sporadic data issue than actual warming.
The narrow range is not a good reflection of average temperatures.
WMO says:
svante…”4. Is our climate changing?
Experts generally agree that the Earth is warming up”.
Once again, the Earth does not have ‘A’ climate. It has a plethora of mini-climates.
Furthermore, some parts of the planet have warmed while others have not. The extreme warming of about +5C in parts of the Arctic has to be offset by cooling elsewhere, or no warming, in order for a global warming of 1C in the past century.
Not true Gordon.
The area north of the arctic circle is 4% of the total.
0.04 * 5C + 0.96 * tC = 1C
tC = (1C – 0.04 * 5C) / 0.96 = 0.83C
Not true Gordon.
The area north of the arctic circle is 4% of the total.
0.04 * 5 + 0.96 * t = 1
t = (1 – 0.04 * 5) / 0.96 = 0.83 deg. C
“Temperatures don’t follow an upward trend, they [are] at best ‘step’ based upon El Ninos and La Ninas.”
Thanks for the good joke.
Do you see the huge El Nino peak in 1982-83 in the bar graph below, showing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)? Do you even know about this El Nino?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
El Nino 1982/83 is the second strongest one between 1979 and 2018.
And do you see a corresponding peak in the UAH anomalies at the same time in the line graph below, where UAH and ENSO were compared as percentiles, as their value ranges differ too much?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yGX8mPStMzSNHdt5b8R2U2mTIdWa8rWK/view
No. As opposed to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 UAH peaks, showing a good fit to MEI, the 1982/83 UAH anomalies were considerably lower as expected from the ENSO signal.
Because at that time, we had 2 major eruptions within two years (St Helens and El Chichon, both VEI 5). The cooling of the lower troposphere caused by these eruptions (aerosols) neutralised the ocean heat uptake by the lower troposphere.
Do you see ENSO in 1991-1993? And dou you see the UAH anomalies at the same time?
At that time, we had a huge eruption (Pinatubo, VEI 6). The LT cooling was even stronger, what you observe in the UAH record, where the anomalies are the exact opposite of ENSO.
*
Thus you can see that UAH anomalies behave completely different during El Nino phases depending on their global context.
So no, CO2IsLife: UAH temperatures are not driven stepwise by El Nino / La Nina. Temperatures in the LT are driven by many more factors, and their evaluation is a far more complex process as you seem to suppose.
Therefore, your baseline choice is exactly as arbitrary as is any other one.
Ooops
a far more complex process than you seem to suppose
co2 is life – What I say is look at all the time we have wasted in the discussion of this stupid theory. That is AGW.
This has put climate science back decades and only a few of us are on the right path.
In the meantime they will keep pumping this theory despite the data going against them.
I am glad I have covered all my bases as far as why it may become colder.
I know if it does become colder AGW will come up with lame excuse after excuse.
“Dr. Spencer, on your chart you use an arbitrary 1981 to 2010 period for the average temperature.
…
Using 1997 to 2015 would give a more comprehensive understanding of temperatures with the average period based upon a natural cycle instead of an arbitrary time period.”
*
CO2IsLife, you seem to confound ‘average’ and ‘baseline’ (you are not alone here in doing that).
The period 1981-2010 chosen by Roy Spencer has nothing to do with an ‘average temperature’. It is a reference period (baseline) whose monthly averages are used to calculate over the entire time series the monthly deviations from the baseline.
If you now would reconstruct, out of UAH’s anomalies and their reference period stored in the file
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
the absolute UAH values, you could create out of these a new anomaly time series, now based on the mean of 1998-2015.
The plot of these new anomalies I guess you hardly could distinct from the plot of the 1981-2010 anomalies, so tiny would be the differences here and there.
When I have some time to spend, I’ll do the job.
The Eternal Quest for Aether, the Cosmic Stuff That Never Was
“…And still, the aether theory survived another major breakthrough in the understanding of light. Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell discovered that electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light because in fact they are one and the same. In other words, radio waves and X-rays and visible light were all part of the same electromagnetic spectrum. Scientists were thrilled: This meant that the different kinds of waves didn’t need their own aethers, but all traveled through the same luminiferous aether.
A luminiferous aether became entrenched in physics, even as the aethers of yesteryear were considered fallacies, and theories about the nature of aether abounded. Maxwell himself summed up the state of affairs in his definition of aether for the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1878:
“Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers … The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.”
And then, the aether died in a basement.
…”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23895030/aether/
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Put this at the bottom:
–Fritz Kraut says:
October 21, 2018 at 12:55 AM
gbaikie says:
October 20, 2018 at 1:51 PM
As said: Warming or not warming the ground has very little to do with whether GHE exist.
______________________________________
Oh, it has very much to do with it; its crucial. Because warming by this backradiation from atmosphere IS GHE.
Only if backradiation wouldnt warm the ground, GHE could be seriously denied.–
This would seem to me to make the job of a “climate denier” easier.
I think there are other posters here who might agree with idea that if backradiation does not warm the ground, then it would disprove GHE.
Now an obvious question is how much does backradiation warm the ground.
And one might assume, that if you double global CO2 levels, this increases backradiation and increases the amount the ground is warmed.
And how much does CO2 at 280 ppm warm the ground and how would 560 ppm warm the ground.
Or right now with about 400 ppm how much is ground warmed by CO2.
Does matter how warm the ground is? Say ground is 70 C, how much is due to having CO2 levels at 400 ppm.
When CO2 levels were 200 ppm what was highest temperature that ground could be warmed to.
Does water vapor increase backradiation?
One has wide range of water vapor in Earth atmosphere- tropics about 3 to 4% and roughly less than 1% outside of tropics- depending weather, ect.
So if you have 1% how much does that warm the ground, and how does it increase temperature of ground if it’s 2%?
GHG EFFECTS ARE REAL. The problem is IT does not dictate the climate but rather the climate dictates IT.
Ice core data is the proof because it shows CO2 ALWAYS follow the temperature and it is no different now.
“..and it is no different now.”
With some research, Salvatore will find ice cores provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 (or CH4) comparable to those of the next century.
With some research, fluff ball will find fluff ball does not have a direct dialogue for the future because fluff ball does not know what is comparable to anything in the next century.
Fluff ball deflates in dishonor as the crowd realizes what a complete phony fluff ball really is.
(How’d I do, DREMT?)
Very good! Maybe just add a couple of “as confirmed by test”s in there, and you will be well away.
DREMT now shows up as a puppet master.
JD, when you misrepresent someone, you need to admit your mistake and apologize, or accept being a reprobate. Running away is NOT an option. Your choice..
Fluffball now tries to respond in some way to make fluffball with some modicum of credibility, but fluffball admits fluffball’s mistakes and apologizes for advertising fluffball’s bogus experiments, as the crowd roars with laughter.
Fluffball runs away to find another fake screen name.
JD runs away, as expected. JD can not deal with JD’s own comments.
Ball4 says, “…can not deal with JD’s comments”, so Ball4 admits in Ball4’s own words that Ball4 “can not deal with JD’s comments” honestly, Ball4 is tried and convicted with misrepresentation in the first degree, sentenced to parade for the crowds, laughing at Ball4 not with Ball4 as he rotates upon Ball4’s own axis.
GHG EFFECTS ARE REAL.
Do greenhouse gases warm the ground. And if so how much?
That can be answered only when it is asked in a meaningful way.
It is like someone arguing against evolution with the question “how can my body transform into a different species”. It can’t be answered because that is not what happens. Similarly, the earth is not warmed by the gases themselves. Ask the proper question, one that shows you understand the process, whether or not you happen to believe it.
bob…”That can be answered only when it is asked in a meaningful way”.
gbaikie asked the question with great clarity. You waffled the answer because you cannot answer the question.
The AGW theory suggests GHGs in the atmosphere are warming the surface, not just a bit to make up losses, but to super-warm the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar radiation.
None of you alarmists can explain that.
–None of you alarmists can explain that.–
Actually I expected at least half of them to say that it’s the surface air which is warmed not the ground.
And get mad because no one is claiming that the ground gets warmer.
And we don’t measure ground temperature rather we measure air temperature.
But some of them, do think the ground is warmed. And why I asked.
Not mention the fact that is doesn’t really matter if the ground warms, anyhow.
Ocean surface temperature on the other hand, does matter.
And also, and more important, would be really pissed off that IF the ground doesn’t warm from greenhouse gases, that would disproves the greenhouse effect theory.
Of course warm air at night will keep the ground warmer- or the ground doesn’t get as cool with warm air as compared to having cold air.
gbaikie…”But some of them, do think the ground is warmed. And why I asked”.
Actually, it is the surface, including the ocean surface, that radiates EM, resulting in a cooling of the surface. Then the heat is replenished by solar energy.
The AGW theory, not the heat trapping bs, claims that the surface is warmed by GHG back-radiation. That BR could not warm the atmosphere above the surface since they clima N2/O2 don’t absorb IR.
Solar energy certainly warms the surface, and maybe the atmosphere too.
“Do greenhouse gases warm the ground. And if so how much?”
Please have a look at
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
and the connected pages.
*
ScienceOfDoom has been acknowledged years ago by Prof. Judith Curry for the accuracy of its information.
Of course, I anticipate that allround-boaster Robertson soon will discredit, denigrate and insult this site.
My comment: Judith Curry is – as far as experience, knowledge, self-control and… conciseness are concerned – lightyears above people like Robertson.
I like Judith Curry. I bought her book on clouds.
ScienceOfDoom has been on internet from quite some time, I would guess it predates Watts up or this site.
But question is does backradiation warm the ground, and if so, how much.
Moonlight exists, does it warm the ground and if so, how much.
And if backradiation doesn’t warm the ground, does it disprove GHE theory?
I think direct sunlight warms the ground. And if far enough away from the sun and it’s direct light is say 100 watts per square meter, it doesn’t warm the ground by much. And about 600 watts of sunlight at Mars warms the ground to about 20 C- though with parked car or greenhouse on Mars, the 600 watts can warm the ground to higher temperature- as 1000 watts of direct sunlight would on Earth.
Also on Earth the direct sunlight reaching a level surface [the ground] varies- it can be 100 watts per square meter [or less]- every day, if you compare watts of direct sunlight to watts backradiation does the direct sunlight warm the ground like backradiation would?
Science of Dumb? It’s just a site run by a clown who never does any experiments to back up his ramblings. It is NOT an authoritative resource. His ideas are just his opinions. He does not know what he’s talking about half the time.
While I have the utmost respect for Dr. Curry, her undergraduate degree was in geography.
gbaikie says:
October 22, 2018 at 9:04 AM
Moonlight exists, does it warm the ground and if so, how much.
____________________________________________
Earth is warmer because of the moon than it would be without the moon. You even dont need moon-“light”.
Even New Moon radiates and transferres energy.
And energy doesnt disappear, as everyone knows.
(Nearly everyone.)
baikie says:
October 22, 2018 at 9:22 AM
..does the direct sunlight warm the ground like backradiation would?
_________________________________________________
To the ground it doesnt matter where radiation comes from. It doesnt even know.
Its just warming or cooling to equilibriumtemperature corresponding to whole power-input. (From sun, CO”-backradiation, moon…even sirius and stella polaris)
More input – higher equilibriumtemperature
Less input – lower equilibriumtemperature.
With moonradiation there ist more input than without moonradiation. Very simple.
binny…”ScienceOfDoom has been acknowledged years ago by Prof. Judith Curry for the accuracy of its information.
Of course, I anticipate that allround-boaster Robertson soon will discredit, denigrate and insult this site”.
Of course, I will, especially after SOD murdered an explanation of the 2nd law. I regard them as propagandists.
skeptic…”Science of Dumb? Its just a site run by a clown who never does any experiments to back up his ramblings”.
That’s more like it skeptic, glad we’re back on the same page.
gbaikie
“Because warming by this backradiation from atmosphere IS GHE. Only if backradiation wouldnt warm the ground, GHE could be seriously denied.”
I disagree.
1. While a planet with an atmosphere consisting of only far IR inactive gases returns nearly all incoming solar energy back to space by radiating far IR in the same amount, a planet with an atmosphere containing far IR active gases cannot return all far IR radiation emitted at its surface, as a part of it is absorbed by these gases, which reemit them in all directions until radiation finally either reaches ground or escapes to space.
2. The higher the radiation escape altitude, the lower its eficiency. { Apology: I forgot the exact explanation for this. Rose knows, but she is not at home. }
This is the IMHO the major GHE point, and GHE can only be falsified by somebody scientifically proving the two sentences above be wrong. Alle people saying “I think it’s wrong; prove me wrong!” you can forget, ignore.
*
Wether or not far IR radiation reaching the ground warms it and how much this warming represents: that is another discussion.
–Bindidon says:
October 22, 2018 at 8:12 AM
gbaikie
Because warming by this backradiation from atmosphere IS GHE. Only if backradiation wouldnt warm the ground, GHE could be seriously denied.
I disagree.–
Ok, you are disagreeing with Fritz Kraut [whom I quoted].
I thought some other other posters might agree, but I imagined at least 1/2 of GHE believers would disagree.
My thought was that Fritz is making it too simple for “deniers” to refute GHE.
I also thought Fritz Kraut might more willing to believe his fellow believers.
Bindidon says:
October 22, 2018 at 8:12 AM
“Because warming by this backradiation from atmosphere IS GHE. Only if backradiation wouldnt warm the ground, GHE could be seriously denied.”
I disagree.
…
Wether or not far IR radiation reaching the ground warms it and how much this warming represents: that is another discussion.
______________________________________________________
@Bindidon
You quoted me, not gbaikie.
I dont understand. Why shouldnt this be important?
Of course the atmosphere would also warm.
But relevant to us is warming just above the ground. And if this would happen only by heat conduction, we propably wouldnt notice any.
gbaikie says:
October 21, 2018 at 3:29 PM
Modtran only, tropical atmosphere, no clouds or rain, fixed wvp:
6.4 K.
7.2 K.
6.8 K.
36 K.
+30% => 1.5 K.
-66% => -4.7 K.
-30% => -2 K.
Some more great pseudoscience from “Modtran Mark”!
svante…”Modtran only, tropical atmosphere, no clouds or rain, fixed wvp:
And how much does CO2 at 280 ppm warm the ground
6.4 K.”
************
GIGO.
Modtran is likely a great app but if you feed it garbage it will spit out garbage.
Svante says:
October 22, 2018 at 2:39 PM
Modtran only, tropical atmosphere, no clouds or rain, fixed wvp:
And how much does CO2 at 280 ppm warm the ground
6.4 K.
and how would 560 ppm warm the ground.
7.2 K.
Or right now with about 400 ppm how much is ground warmed by CO2.
6.8 K.
Say ground is 70 C, how much is due to having CO2 levels at 400 ppm.
36 K.
——————
It appears that doubling CO2 does not warm ground by much, yet when sunlight warms the ground to 70 C, the present levels of CO2 warms ground by a lot.
When sunlight warms the salty water about 1 meter under water to 80 C in a solar pond, how much is added by current CO2 levels?
I would think if you had a transparent pressure vessel on the Moon and within it, a solar pond, the water meter below the surface would warm to about 120 C, due to 1360 watts per square warming the water.
Or on earth when sunlight is about 1000 watts per square, an insulated box can reach the temperature of about 80 C, and on the Moon the same insulated box can reach temperature of about 120 C.
I am also interested what temperature the ground is when he claims it warmed by 6.8 K.
With global air surface temperature the average land temperature is about 10 C.
Canada average air surface temperature is about -4 C, the US 48 states is about 12 C
And India is average surface air temperature is about 24.5 C
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/India
But I have no clue what average ground of world’s land, or various
countries because it’s not measured and available.
But I can do wild ass guess that it’s similar to land air temperatures.
Or simply know that India average ground temperature is much warmer than Canada’s average ground temperature and therefore CO2 is warming India land temperature much more than Canada’s ground temperature?
I also wonder, whether Mars follows the same Svante laws.
We know the ground temperatures of Mars reach about 20 C or more is this due to Mars having about 30 times more CO2 per square meter as compared to Earth?
Try some of that here:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Mars has a lot of CO2 but the rest of the atmosphere leaks like a sieve. This model puts the GHE at 2 K:
https://tinyurl.com/ybghcxx3
Same can be said for water vapor it is dictated by the climate.
It works both ways.
look at this post I found and the manipulation of data
ngard2016 | October 20, 2018 at 6:17 am | Reply
Nic Ive checked the HAD Crut 4 temp trends before, but it seems to have changed a lot since Phil Joness Q&A with the BBC in 2010, after the Climategate scandal.
In 2010 he listed 4 warming trends since 1850 and there wasnt much difference in the trends. The 4 trends were-
1860 to 1880- 0.163c dec
1910 to 1940- 0.150 dec
1975 to 1998- 0.166 dec
1975 to 2009- 0.161 dec.
Today the York Uni tool has the SAME 4 trends for Had 4 Crut at
1860 to 1880- 0.156c dec lower
1910 to 1940- 0.137 dec lower
1975 to 1998- 0.191 dec much higher
1975 to 2009- 0.193 dec. much higher
Here is Nic Lewis’ answer at Climate Etc:
niclewis | October 20, 2018 at 9:49 am | Reply
ngard2016,
Had-CRUT is not perfect, but I would trust its temperature record more that GISTEMP or NOAA GlobalTemp.
Some revisions to past values are to be expected, as more historical records are dug out, and homogenisation adjustments to the data reappraised (particularly in relation to ship measurements of SST).
The revisions are only a cause for concern if they have not been pursued in an even handed way, but with a bias towards favouring changes that depress early temperatures and boost recent ones.
*
Moreover, what neither ngard2016 nor you take into account, Salvatore, is the fact that in 2010, Phil Jones referred to the Had-CRUT3 time series.
In 2012, Had-CRUT4 was introduced, with a considerable amount of new station records, a great part of them coming from historical stations in the Russian Arctic.
This had a considerable influence on the CRUTEM4 (land) part of Had-CRUT4, as these new stations made
– the past cooler than it was before, as it was previously dominated by regions with higher anomalies (CONUS, Europe);
– the present warmer, because all Arctic stations actually report higher temperature anomalies than anywhere else.
*
What I don’t understand is Nic Lewis’ remark concerning Had-CRUT being more trustworthy than GISS or NOAA:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qzRklxd1bsrNzm4b21j0o2QKtJ9FHfLn/view
From 1910 to 1970, Had-CRUT is a bit ‘warmer’; anywhere else, all three perfectly correlate.
Trends in C / decade (2 sigma here around 0.002)
– Had: 0.067
– NOAA: 0.070
– GISS: 0.072
What a huuuge difference!
And to conclude: ngard2016 does not seem to know how to correctly use Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer.
Trends for Had-CRUT4:
– 1860-1880: 0.113
– 1910-1940: 0.127
– 1975-1998: 0.174
– 1975-2009: 0.189
binny…”What I dont understand is Nic Lewis remark concerning Had-CRUT being more trustworthy than GISS or NOAA:”
That’s easy, Had-crut are only lightweight fudgers while NOAA and GISS are major fudgers.
However, Phil Jones of Had-crut adamantly refused to release Had-crut data to Steve Mcintyre for independent audit. He admitted that the data was in a mess and that some of the original data had been lost.
This is the guy who applauded Mann’s trick, which hid declining temperatures. In the Climategate email scandal Jones admitted to having used it.
When McIntyre submitted an FOI request to the UK government to have Had-crut data released, Jones lobbied in the emails to have his cronies take action to block McIntyre’s request.
What did Phil have to hide?
Gordon ,see how they always spin the data which is manipulated to try to justify it.
As always, Robertson the allround-boaster is unable to enrich the discussion with meaningful arguments.
Instead, he provides a copy and paste of incompetent pseudo-skeptical pages that specialize in discrediting, denigrating and lying.
Like Judith Curry, Nic Lewis is lightyears above Robertson in puncto experience, knowledge, self-control and conciseness.
I don’t see you complaining about the UAH adjustment which took it from zero trend to the current significant positive trend. Both trends were in the same direction, yet one is acceptable the other is not.
bob…”I dont see you complaining about the UAH adjustment which took it from zero trend to the current significant positive trend”.
Nothing to do with adjustments, the trend came from an extreme El Nino in February 2016. Or, have you been away?
Really? So the ENTIRE trend of +0.13 in the UAH data is due to that one El Nino, is that right?
@Gordon Robertson
“…the trend came from an extreme El Nino in February 2016.”
________________________________________________________
Trend was already positive before this El Nino.
Trends for Had-CRUT4:
– 1860-1880: 0.113
– 1910-1940: 0.127
– 1975-1998: 0.174
– 1975-2009: 0.189
A bunch of BS.
1860 to 1880- 0.163c dec
1910 to 1940- 0.150 dec
1975 to 1998- 0.166 dec
1975 to 2009- 0.161 dec.
THE CORRECT DATA
I just downloaded the data and worked out the linear trends on Excel. I got:
1860 to 1880- 0.107
1910 to 1940- 0.130
1975 to 1998- 0.197
1975 to 2009- 0.187
I did the calculation on the ANNUAL anomalies, and included the endpoints of the intervals. Close to Bindidon’s (except for the 3rd interval), nowhere near years. I’m guessing Bindidon didn’t include the final year in the interval, which would explain why 1975-1998 was much higher for me.
nowhere near yours
It is al BS and meaningless.
No data then, just bluster.
Exactly! It was late yesterday and I forgot that Kevin Cowtan’s trend machine interprets ‘1998’ as a year’s begin and not as a full year.
I should have entered ‘1998.99’ or ‘1999’ instead. My bad!
Your numbers are all correct.
I add an interesting detail: the difference between Excel and Kevin Cowtans trend computer when computing the 2 sigma of a linear estimate.
Let us look at Had-CRUT4 again.
1. Excel
1860-1880: 0.106 ± 0.022
1910-1940: 0.131 ± 0.008
1975-1998: 0.196 ± 0.011
1975-2009: 0.186 ± 0.006
2. KC’s TC
1860-1880: 0.106 ± 0.148
1910-1940: 0.131 ± 0.054
1975-1998: 0.196 ± 0.076
1975-2009: 0.186 ± 0.041
I know that Excel’s Linest function does not account for autocorrelation in time series, let alone for Quenouille correction, but such differences always surprise me.
Especially the 2 sigma for 1860-1880, which in fact makes the trend statistically unsignificant. I guess this is due to the paucity of data at that time, leading to higher standard deviations.
You’re talking about statistics that is beyond my current knowledge.
I’ll wait for you to tell me how you calculated your trends.
And – is there ANY chance this time you could respond to this post instead of starting your own thread. For once will you forego your desire to be on top.
No Salvatore: this is NOT the correct data.
norman…”Look at page 588 Chapter 5 section 5 and read the first paragraph. This proves you are wrong but you will not accep-t it. So please do not lie and distort the truth and say No one has been able to prove me wrong, in my explanations of physics”.
Norman…will you for once, please, please, please, read the entire chap-ter?
Here is a quote from Kircheoff early in the chap-ter and the rest of the chap-ter is based on this premise.
Page 545 of 706
“This is the law from G.R. Kirchhoff [5.5]: Any body at a given temperature T emits, in every solid angle element and in every wavelength interval, the same radiative power as it absorbs there from the radiation of a black body (= hollow enclosure radiation) having the same temperature”.
“HAVING THE SAME TEMPERATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1”
There is no mention anywhere that I can see of BBs at different temperatures. Any book applying Kircheoff with BBs, or between any bodies of different temperature, are wrong!!!!
Such a mutual transfer of heat between bodies of different temperatures contradicts the 2nd law.
On page 544, “According to the 2nd law, the state of this equilibrium system consisting of radiation in an enclosure and the black body cannot change despite the absorp-tion of the radiation in the enclosure. The black body therefore has to replace the radiation it absorbs by its own emission of radiation”.
I still think this is wrong but at least the author concedes that the 2nd law must be obeyed.
They have admitted, however, that the 2nd law prevents a heat transfer between bodies in thermal equilibrium. The extension of that is obvious: heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Page 525:
“By the emission of thermal radiation, internal energy of the emitting body is converted into energy of the electromagnetic waves or, in the language of quantum theory, the energy of photons, which leave the surface of the radiating body. In this emission process the atoms or molecules of the body change from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy. However we do not need to go into these intramolecular processes for the formulation of the important phenomenological laws of heat transfer”.
Yes, you do have to go into the quantum theory, which is all about electrons. If you don’t understand how electrons operate at different energy levels you don’t know how EM is emitted and absorbed, and you make eg.regious errors in presump-tions about heat transfer.
Here again, they are vague about the meaning of internal energy, which is heat. Heat is converted to EM, why not say so? It’s obvious they don’t understand that. When heat is converted to EM, the body cools. There is a loss of heat, which is internal energy, explained by Clausius, as a combination of internal heat and it’s equivalent, the mechanical energy in the vibration of atoms.
Page 588:
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection”.
A complete and utter contradiction of what they claimed above re the 2nd law. They admitted above that a hotter body cannot absorb EM from a colder body without emitting the energy it receives. That is what Clausius called compensation, and it cannot occur naturally. Such a process requires external energy and specialized equipment and materials.
The exchange of energy mentioned in the paragraph before last is contradictory. We are talking about thermal energy, not EM. They are obfuscating the meaning of energy and passing it off as a contradiction of the 2nd law.
That is an amateurish way of presenting science and it is noted they dodged the quantum theory explanation that would have revealed the contradiction in their claim.
If you read through the rest of the chap-ter, they present the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as operating in two directions between bodies of different temperatures. That is bs, S-B made no specifications for two way heat transfer, they specified only radiation between a hot body and a cooler environment.
Furthermore, throughout the chap-ter they are dealing with bodies in thermal equilibrium. When they offer problems with heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures they mention nothing about heat being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body.
Norman, you need to get it that this theoretical presentation of thermodynamics is nothing more than bs based on a misunderstanding of S-B. I have yet to see a practical application of a situation where heat is transferred radiatively from a cooler body to a warmer body when the bodies were NOT IN THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
They can bray all they want about view angles and such, I want to see a practical application in which heat is transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by radiation. And please don’t offer swannie’s experiments since we know what causes the rise in temperature of the hotter body.
I don’t think these authors understand the deep-rooted basics of thermodynamics. If they did, they would not waffle on important issues like the 2nd law and quantum theory. They would explain EXACTLY how electrons convert heat to EM rather than generalizing emission as coming from matter.
If you don’t talk about electrons you have no idea how it’s done.
norman…I thumbed through the rest of the text book and the chapters on conduction and convection look solid. I got the impression, since thermal radiation was in the last chapter, and radiation was not dealt with significantly through the rest of the book, that the authors have expertise in conduction and convection and threw in the chapter on radiation.
With regard to radiation, they contradicted themselves several times. The notion that radiation from bodies of different temperatures must be absorbed by both bodies is a modern concept that has no practical applications. I have yet to see this two-way stuff covered in problems offered in text books, unless it is an adjunct to problems featuring conduction and convection as well.
In such cases, heat MUST flow from hotter bodies to cooler bodies, there is absolutely no question in that regard. Whenever radiation is introduced, like from a wall surface after the wall has conducted heat, the overall heat transfer MUST be from a hotter body to a cooler body.
The examples offered in text books of heat transfer via radiation from colder bodies to hotter bodies NEVER gives temperatures or any indication of how a hotter body can absorb heat from a colder body. There is no way to show that, it is entirely hypothetical.
In heat exchangers and refrigerators, radiation is involved but only when heat is transferred from a hotter source to a cooler source.
The equations, based on S-B, showing a two way absorp-tions/emission of EM, suggesting a two way heat transfer, are bogus.
Gordon, you are misreading/misinterpreting Kirchhoff when he says:
“Any body at a given temperature T emits, in every solid angle element and in every wavelength interval, the same radiative power as it absorbs there from the radiation of a black body (= hollow enclosure radiation) having the same temperature.”
This is simply a restatement of “there is not heat flow when two objects are the same temperature.” If this were NOT true then heat from flow from one object to another object at the same temperature!
The extension of this — that heat flows from warmer to cooler objects would be:
“Any body at a given temperature T emits, in every solid angle element and in every wavelength interval, GREATER radiative power as it absorbs there from the radiation of a black body (= hollow enclosure radiation) having A LOWER temperature.
And Any body at a given temperature T emits, in every solid angle element and in every wavelength interval, LESS radiative power as it absorbs there from the radiation of a black body (= hollow enclosure radiation) having HIGHER temperature.”
Kirchhoff is in no way forbidding radiation from warmer or cooler blackbodies. He is simply utilizing the fact that — in accordance with the 2nd Law — that net radiative power always good from warmer objects to cooler object (and never from one object to another object at the same temperature).
^^ .. net radiative power always GOES from warmer objects to cooler objects
Tim, when you misrepresent someone, you need to admit your mistake and apologize, or accept being a reprobate. Running away is NOT an option.
Your choice….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326011
JD,
1) “Whataboutism” is not a defense. It can be very effective at sidetracking away from your own problems if people are not watching for it. Even if I were wrong elsewhere, that doesn’t say a thing about whether you are right about a different topic here.
2) I *did* address your concern. You implicitly described two motions even if you don’t recognize it at such. Your circular “orbit” *is* exactly identical to a pure translation of the center-of-mass of the moon around the earth and a pure rotation about the center-of-mass of the the moon around its own axis.
3) You are still wrong here. You did indeed misrepresent the quote from Kirchhoff, as well as misrepresenting point that the authors of the textbook were making.
So rather than deflecting, try explaining both:
1) how your ‘orbit’ is NOT pure translation + pure rotation
2) the context of the textbook and how it could actually mean what you imply.
Or accept your own advice and “admit your mistake and apologize, or accept being a reprobate.”
Clown, or should I say “reprobate”, you can not spin your way out of this one. You said that I had defined “orbiting” with two motions. I denied that. I asked you to provide a link to where you believe I said such a thing. I have asked you repeatedly. You have not provided the link.
Instead, you try to put words in my mouth, as you continue to misrepresent me.
Put up, or shut up!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325862
Tim is correct, JD wrote about “orbiting” as being two different motions.
JD’s own words from the search function: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction”.
Fluffball tries to run interference for the failing pseudoscience of reprobates. Fluffball tries to twist and spin reality to fit fluffballs perversion. Fluffball’s experiments fail as fluffball is unable to provide EXACT quotes, that fluffball cannot misinterpret as fluffball desires.
The crowd roars with raucous laughter as fluffball’s licentious efforts fail, as usual.
Those are exact quotes of JD’s writing. Obviously JD can not deal with quotes from JD’s own comments.
Again JD, when you misrepresent someone, you need to admit your mistake and apologize, or accept being a reprobate. Running away is NOT an option. Your choice..
Fluffball continues with fluffballs attempt to misquote. Fluffball tries to twist and spin to fit fluffball’s perverted views. Fluffballs experiments fail as fluffball is unable to provide EXACT quotes, that fluffball cannot misinterpret as fluffball desires.
The crowd roars with raucous laughter as fluffballs licentious efforts fail, as usual.
No misquote JD, you just can not face what you actually wrote. Running away again is not an option.
Fluffball entertains the crowd with more desperate claims. Fluffball is unable to link to the quotes he misinterprets. Fluffball cannot face his own inadequacies and failures to face reality. All of Fluffball’s experiments have failed Fluffball. Fluffball runs from reality.
The runaway is JD with no counterarguments. Since running away was not an option JD accepts being a humorous reprobate by his own comments.
Once again, since you apparently missed it the first time…
“2) I *did* address your concern. You implicitly described two motions even if you dont recognize it at such. Your circular orbit *is* exactly identical to a pure translation of the center-of-mass of the moon around the earth and a pure rotation about the center-of-mass of the the moon around its own axis.”
Mathematically and physically, your “orbit” IS a pure translation + a pure rotation.
Honestly, your object is about like:
YOU: “I bought some Neapolitan ice cream ”
ME: “Oh, yes, that chocolate, vanilla, & strawberry ”
YOU “It’s Neapolitan , you clown and reprobate! How dare you call it chocolate, vanilla, & strawberry!”
YOU: “My computer monitor is lit up purple”
ME: “Oh, yes, That is actually red and blue pixels together.”
YOU “It’s purple, you clown and reprobate! How dare you call it red + blue!”
So unless you can show how your definition of “orbit” is actually different than a pure translation + a pure rotation, just give it a rest. Just realize that smarter people than either of us have thought long and hard and — and none of them agree with you.
Once again Tim, since you apparently missed it the first time….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326366
Tim didn’t miss it since Tim is correct, reprobate JD wrote about “orbiting” as being two different motions.
JD’s own words from the search function: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction”.
We could go around on this all day.
So go ahead, show how your definition of orbit is actually different than a pure translation + a pure rotation. Or give it a rest.
Its like ..
YOU: There is a town 10 miles northeast of here.
ME: Oh, its 7 mild north and 7 miles east.
YOU: I never said that! How could you possibly think I said the town was 7 miles north and 7 miles east!?
The search function confirms that Ball4 has said each of these words, “Ball4”, “is”, “wrong”, “and”, “JD”, “right”, so the search function confirms that Ball4 has said “Ball4…is…wrong…and…JD…is…right”, so Ball4 confirms in his own words that he is wrong and JD right, as confirmed by the search function, and Ball4’s own words as confirmed by test.
Tim, are you keeping track of all the times you have avoided facing reality?
I am….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326366
tim…”He is simply utilizing the fact that in accordance with the 2nd Law that net radiative power always good from warmer objects to cooler object”
There is nothing in the Clausius statement of the 2nd law that talks about net radiative power. All it states is that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
It is could, we would not need electrical power, compressors, refrig.e.rants, condensers and evapourators to make refrigerators and air conditioners work.
Clausius also stated that radiation must obey the 2nd law. Unfortunately, he was not privy to quantum theory and electrons and he was under the wrong impression that heat was radiated from bodies as heat.
It was a couple of decades after he stated the 2nd law that electrons were discovered, and another 15 years before Bohr put 2 + 2 together and related electrons to EM.
The equation representing the relationship is E = hf. That f is very important because an electron of frequency f cannot absorb EM that is outside it’s narrow range of frequencies. That eliminates EM from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body.
I’m sure that if the temperatures are very close (close to thermal equilibrium) that a certain amount of heat can be transferred both ways via radiation, but never with conduction.
My updated guesstimate for October UAH up to Oct 19: +0.20
Down from 3 days ago.
How could any one venture a guess when there are 10 days left in the months. What waste of time.
My guess is -90
You mean the way you looked at falling SSTs in recent months and guessed that the fall would continue? What a waste of time that was.
How can it be the global mean temperature 0.14C if the temperatures in all regions are all equal or above 0.14C?
Every other month, the mean global temperature has been between the maximum and de minimum of the regional temperatures.
Thank you for your attention.
There are two groups of regions.
(1) N/S hemisphere … after accounting for rounding, 0.14 being the average of 0.14 and 0.15 makes perfect sense.
(2) Tropics, Arctic, USA, Australia … This doesn’t go close to covering the globe. Not sure what his definition for Arctic and the tropics is, but assuming we can take it literally then this accounts for only about 48% of the globe.
From my point of view what good is past data when there are all different interpretations.
As far as your monthly temperature estimates you have a point. My sea surface temperature outlook thus far has been off to say the least.
Different interpretations?? Perhaps you didn’t read my comment properly – I was indicating only that all the data is not presented in the table. If it was, the average would come out the same (after weighting for area).
Des
“Not sure what his definition for Arctic and the tropics is…”
Look at the file located in https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w .
At the bottom you see
GL 90S-90N, NH 0-90N, SH 90S-0, TRPCS 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-90N, SoExt 90S-20S, NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S
(With 90N and 90S I have a little problem, as in Roy Spencer’s 2.5 grid, the three northernmost and southernmost latitude bands do not contain valuable data. Thus 60N-82.5N should be more exact.)
The wikipedia article says the excluded areas are latitude 85-90, and regions with an altitude greater than 1500 metres. According to the article that gives then 97-98% coverage.
Doesn’t really change my point though.
“Doesnt really change my point though.”
Indeed, especially when you take latitude weighting into account.
— The higher the radiation escape altitude, the lower its eficiency. { Apology: I forgot the exact explanation for this. Rose knows, but she is not at home. }
This is the IMHO the major GHE point, and GHE can only be falsified by somebody scientifically proving the two sentences above wrong–
It is vaguely correct. But I would say Venus is not warmer according to this.
Venus has more atmosphere below the point it radiating into space. Or if dig a big hole on earth or have empty ocean basin, the air will be warmer at basin floor.
And it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
“the air will be warmer at basin floor.”
What the heck does that have to do with what I was telling about, gbaikie?
Nothing.
the air will be warmer at basin floor.
What the heck does that have to do with what I was telling about, gbaikie?
CO2 radiates at high elevation, in colder and less dense air into the space environment.
The idea is if air is warmer, CO2 will radiate at higher elevation.
And more CO2 makes the air warmer.
Now I understand what you mean.
This is exactly what J.-P. Blaser, Prof. emeritus at the ETH Zuerich, has explained in a nice little paper I read last year (unfortunately written in german).
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I brought a comment you made down here. I did more thinking on it. And some actual testing.
“Norman, I am glad you like the thought process, but there is still something you are not getting. Why are you saying, for instance:
Yes if you rotate the seat in the opposite direction of the wheel revolution at the same rate the wheel is spinning the cookies will not fall out. Similar if the seat is not rotating.
What do you mean by, if the seat is not rotating? Norman, if the motor is doing the work, or if you leave gravity to do the work, it is the same. The seat IS rotating.
And Norman, if you eliminate the axis of rotation of a seat, then the seat has no axis to rotate around. So it cannot possibly be rotating around that axis.”
I found, by actually taking a bottle with a label and moving it in an orbit while rotating it, that it does not matter which way the seat rotates. At the top (if seat rotation equals rate of Ferris wheel rotation) the cookies are gone in both cases. With the Ferris Wheel rotating CCW (as in the video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4c_1nns3Ds
If the seat rotates CCW the head of a rider will always face the center and the seat will be upside down at the top. If the seat rotates CW at the same rate the Wheel rotates counter clockwise the result will be the feet point to center the first quarter turn, the head faces down at the top just as with the CCW seat rotation. At the 3/4 location the feet again are pointing at the center and the head is out.
If the seats rotate at all the cookies fall out at some point. If slow or fast. The only time the cookies do not come out is when the seats do not rotate around. That is the normal operation of a Ferris Wheel. The cookies will not fall out of the seat. Any rotation will cause the cookies to come out.
Your statement is wrong and not logical. YOU state: “What do you mean by, if the seat is not rotating? Norman, if the motor is doing the work, or if you leave gravity to do the work, it is the same. The seat IS rotating.” No gravity is NOT rotating the seat at all, it is preventing the seat from rotating. I am sure you don’t know what the word rotate means and I am almost as certain it would not be possible for me to educate you on what it means.
You can take a box and put a piece of candy in the middle of the top of the box. You can move the box up, down, side to side and 3D direction and the candy will not hit the ground. Once you start to rotate the box the candy falls to the ground at some point in the rotation.
You can take the same box with the same candy on top and move it in a circular orbit around and axis. As long as you do not rotate the box at all the candy will not drop.
No the seats of the Ferris Wheel ARE NOT ROTATING! Why you think they are is beyond my ability to understand. Cookies will not fall out, the seats do not rotate! Please do not be as illogical as JDHuffman. Contending with that dork is enough for one blog!
Norman, maybe some reality will help….
https://postimg.cc/QB0Xr37C
Norm,
You are dealing with clowns, dorks and trolls.
The seats are performing curvilinear translation, which means they do not rotate wrt the inertial reference frame, all per the standard definitions of kinematics.
If you draw a straight fixed line through a seat, that line will remain pointing in the same direction throughout its orbit, meeting the definition of translation. While the object can follow a curvilinear path, the object does not rotate about its axis wrt the inertial reference frame.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
SGW, I think you tried to use the coffee cup example once. Or, at least something similar. Anyway, some clown tried to claim that the “orbiting” motion was modeled by moving a coffee cup in a large circle, keeping the handle always facing in the same direction. But, that motion is NOT “translational”. You still cannot understand “translational” motion. Maybe this will help:
Merely tape two felt tip markers to opposite sides of the cup. The markers are taped vertically, so they can mark the surface as the cup moves.
In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the center. This is, of course, PURE orbital motion. The circles do not cross. (This is the motion of the Moon.)
In Figure B, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the same direction, such as north. This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles. Figure B models two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table rotating on its own axis so that the handle always faces the center. This is, of course, orbital motion with rotation about the cup’s own axis by simple inspection. The circles do not cross because the cup always faces forward like a racehorse on a closed track and of course, this is the same motion as the Moon always facing forward.
In Figure B the cup does not rotate on its own axis, not always facing forward, always facing N, so the circles cross.
Fluffball spins reality as Fluffball cannot face reality. Reality is just something to be twisted to fit Fluffball’s perverted views. The crowd roars with laugher.
More please.
JD yet again runs away, accepts being a reprobate, has no counterargument. This will never change because there is no counterargument for simple inspection. And Tim is correct JD should: accept JD’s own advice and “admit your mistake and apologize, or accept being a reprobate.”
Fluffball was warned about Fluffball’s drug addiction. Police raiding Fluffball’s basement apartment this evening found numerous illegal drugs. Fluffball now will likely be court-ordered to receive counseling.
Few have ever recovered from court-ordered rehabilitation….
JD yet again runs away, accepts being a reprobate, has no counterargument. This will never change.
Ball4 says, “In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table…this is, of course, orbital motion…by simple inspection”, so Ball4 explicitly states in Ball4’s own words that in Figure A, the cup is only performing “orbital motion” and not, as Ball4 says, “rotation about the cup’s own axis”, so Ball4 has learned a little physics, making good progress, and is keeping the crowds entertained, as confirmed by test.
The clown makes up his own definition of translation. Actually he never does really define it, he just declares something translational. His examples never conform to the strict kinematic definition of translation, nor do they conform to the multiple illustrations from various university engineering/physics departments that give examples of translation. That’s why he’s a troll.
JD accepts being a humorous reprobate troll running away without counterarguments, but this has been known around here for years and several banned screen names.
http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf
On page 1 of the above, the bottom left figure gives an illustration and definition of translation.
“Translational motion: The orientation of the object is
unchanged during the motion.”
This is EXACTLY what the ferris wheel seat is doing.
Poor troll’s ideas conflicts totally with the true definition of translation.
SGW, you continue to be confused by the links you find. You remind me of Norman, who constantly finds links he believes support his beliefs, only to find out he confused himself.
Anyway, you are confused about translational motion. You cannot accept that the Moon is in translational motion. You firmly believe it is orbiting and rotating on its axis, at the same time. But, the coffee cup, the racehorse, the cannonball, all indicated differently.
In fact, you have been able to disregard all evidence except that that supports your preconceived beliefs.
I doubt you will change….
The coffee cup Fig. A, the racehorse on a closed track, all indicate same motion as the moon.
In fact, JD has been able to disregard all evidence from simple inspection in order to support JD’s preconceived beliefs.
SkepticGoneWild
You were better off ignoring the troll. He likes to taunt and provoke.
The troll maybe knows as much physics as you do but trolls on purpose to annoy you.
It is more likely he is just trolling than he can be as stupid as he pretends to be. I am not sure of DREMT.
Your link is sufficient, valid and correct but the troll will post only to provoke and annoy you.
Ball4 seems to know how to react to the troll. Troll comes up with drugs and Fluffball in frustration. Excellent job Ball4, you know how to deal with a blog troll. I will learn your technique and apply if the troll jumps in one of my posts (which he will do).
Ball4 says, “The coffee cup Fig. A, the racehorse on a closed track, all indicate same motion as the moon” so is now in agreement with JD, in Ball4’s own words, as confirmed in a test by Dr Spencer and others, and in regards to Clausius’s own writings, put into Ball4’s own words, as confirmed by the search function, and by test. icle4.
Norman rambles: “I will learn your technique and apply if the troll jumps in one of my posts.”
Norman, that’s all you appear able to learn–deceptive tricks!
Learn some physics. Learn to appreciate reality.
Life is too short to just live in your fantasy world that you type out endlessly.
Attention Dumb Amoebas
This physics reference CONFIRMS what I have been saying all along:
http://madisoncollegephysics.net/233/week09-1.pdf
Look on Slide 3.
“Each gondola is subjected to curvilinear translation.”
You CLOWNS have the WRONG definition of translation. Everything you clowns state is backwards and pathetically wrong.
Once again, SGW has proved to himself that he is right!
The poor guy doesn’t understand the gondolas are “subjected to curvilinear translation” because they are free to rotate about the axle while orbiting!
Likely the next time he finds a link, he will believe his is right also.
Just keep trying SGW. Doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results, is….
skeptic…”Each gondola is subjected to curvilinear translation.
You CLOWNS have the WRONG definition of translation. Everything you clowns state is backwards and pathetically wrong”.
It’s not clear whether the gondolas are on an axle that allows them to remain upright as the Ferris wheel turns. I would presume that’s the case, in which case, the gondolas are rotating about an axis.
At the top of the wheel, a person sitting in the gondola would have his/her butt pointed toward the Gondola. 90 degrees later at 3 0’clock that person’s butt would be pointed in a direction perpendicular to the wheel. 180 degrees later, at the bottom, the person’s head would be pointed at the wheel.
That is not curvilinear translation. The axle about which the gondalas rotate would perform curvilinear translation.
The lower drawing to the left of the wheel is correct. If you extend that curve in the same direction as the rectilinear example above it, all lines parallel to the path will remain parallel to the path.
If you extend the curved path into an oval, all lines through the body parallel to a tangent line to the curve will remain parallel to the tangent. However, the verticle line shown in the drawing will rotate through 360 degrees wrt to the centre of the oval.
Same thing with the Earth-Moon problem. The Moon is performing curvilinear motion since it does not rotate about it’s own axis. It turns through 360 degrees during one orbit due to the curvilinear translation.
“It’s not clear whether the gondolas are on an axle that allows them to remain upright as the Ferris wheel turns.”
Of course there is an axle that allows the gondolas to always remain pointed in the same direction, or upright (translation)
“I would presume that’s the case, in which case, the gondolas are rotating about an axis.”
This is where you guys fail miserably. The description of motion must always be described wrt the inertial reference frame. Obviously there is an axle fixed to the rotating ferris wheel. But the axle is rotating, along with the ferris wheel, wrt the gondola. But the gondola does not rotate with respect to the inertial reference frame.
And you are CONTINUALLY using the wrong definition of translation, especially curvilinear translation. An object experiencing curvilinear translation must always point in the same direction, like the gondola throughout its motion. Why are you NOT getting this??
ThickticGoneThick, please stop thick-ing.
Norman, if the motor rotated the seats at the exact same rate that the Ferris wheel moves round, but in the opposite direction, the cookies would not fall out. You understood this before. Now why have you suddenly rejected this?
You were talking before about a toy Ferris wheel, and experimenting with setting a seat to rotate at different rates and in different directions. So let’s try it. There are three settings: reverse, off, and forward. The Ferris wheel rotates CCW. Reverse sets the motor rotating the seat at the same rate the Ferris wheel rotates, but CW. Off means obviously that the seat does not rotate at all (also meaning it is locked in position, unable to rotate on its axis). Forward means the seat rotates CCW at the same rate the Ferris wheel rotates. You put one single cookie in the seat, and each time it falls out you put it back in the seat.
Reverse: With Ferris wheel stationary, the cookie falls out of the seat. With Ferris wheel in motion, the cookie never falls out of the seat.
Off: With Ferris wheel stationary, the cookie doesn’t fall out of the seat. With Ferris wheel in motion, the cookie falls out of the seat, once per rotation of the wheel.
Forward: With Ferris wheel stationary, the cookie falls out of the seat. With Ferris wheel in motion, the cookie falls out of the seat, twice per rotation of the wheel (twice as regularly as when the Ferris wheel is stationary).
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
No you are wrong. I was initially wrong until I did some tests with labeled bottles acting as seats.
The seats DO NOT ROTATE under normal operation. The are free of the assembly that turns and hence keep the same position in the gravity field and cookies do not fall out of the seat as the wheel rotates.
Try some tests and you will see the error of your thoughts or be convinced you are right. I can’t change your mind. I can suggest you do some research and it will show the truth.
SkepticGoneWild is correct and has a good link to demonstrate the real physics.
If you rotate a labeled bottle (call the label heads) in opposite direction of the way you are moving it in a circular path you will see that at the top the label is facing down, the cookies fall out.
Do the test or you will not understand your incorrect thought process. That is how I corrected mine, will you do the same?
Norman says:
No you are wrong.
In “Reverse”, the seat is rotating CW at the same rate as the wheel rotates CCW. This has the same end result as the seats under normal operation, that are free of the assembly that turns, and proves that a rotating seat can appear not to be rotating.
Do the Ferris wheel test or you will not understand your incorrect thought process.
Norman admits: “I was initially wrong until I did some tests with labeled bottles acting as seats.”
Norman, you’re STILL wrong, just in a different way.
This should help, if you study it carefully:
https://postimg.cc/QB0Xr37C
The thing is, Norman actually had it right before his bottle experiment confused him (well, obviously not totally right, but he was maybe starting to get there). Now there will probably be no way back for him. I anticipate the insults will start flying soon.
It’s amazing all the effort they go to, just to be wrong!
Reality is right in front of them, clear as can be, but they twist, spin, prevaricate, dodge, ramble, and evade.
It’s a great study in human psychology….
Watching someone talk to own sock puppet is indeed a great study in human psychology.
OK, so Des…just to try and force you back on topic, do you understand that the Ferris wheel seat, set to “Reverse”, will appear exactly the same as a seat under normal operation. Yes/No?
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “In Reverse, the seat is rotating CW at the same rate as the wheel rotates CCW. This has the same end result as the seats under normal operation, that are free of the assembly that turns, and proves that a rotating seat can appear not to be rotating.”
Incorrect thinking based upon not doing any actual testing. Sad you won’t do it. You don’t need a Ferris Wheel you can do it with any object. If you want to believe JDHuffman go right ahead. You will find you are wrong if you do any real world testing. As long as you keep it abstract you can make up any delusion you like.
OK Norman.
Norman, for only about $20, you can do an actual experiment!
https://www.amazon.com/Gerson-Lighted-Moving-Musical-Ferris/dp/B0753GCK1V/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1540304543&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=lighted+ferris+wheel&psc=1
I will take Des’s silence as a “yes”.
No one thinks “an object at rest will just start moving without an external force”. No one says “an object at rest needs breaks to keep it at rest.” We all know and respect Newton’s 1st Law as regards translational motion.
Why do several people seem to reject Newton’s 1st Law regarding rotational motion. Will anyone actually defend the statement “an object that is not rotating on its axis will just start rotating on its axis without an external torque”?
**********************************
Rather than a horse or wagon, let’s make it a train car. The train car is rolling at steady speed down a flat, straight track. No net force; no net torque.
Then it comes to a corner (to the left for sake of discussion). The track starts to apply a force to the left ON THE FRONT WHEELS — but not the rear wheels. This causes a net force to the side. And it applies a net TORQUE (CCW as seen from above, or “upward” using the stardard “right hand rule” for torque) about the center of mass of the train car. This cause the train car to start to turn to the left around the corner (net force) AND start to rotate about its own axis (net torque).
Once the car is fully into the corner, then the track applies the force to BOTH the front and rear wheels toward the center of the curve. There is a net FORCE (accelerating the car toward the center) but NO NET TORQUE — the car keeps rotating about its center of mass at a constant rate.
The reverse happens as it leaves the corner. The track stops applying a leftward force to front wheels. The track keeps applying a clockwise torque to the rear wheels (a downward torque), to stop the rotation about the axis of the train car.
**************************************
The same for the horse or the child’s wagon. Each have a net torque about their center of mass going into the corner to start them rotating as they go into the corner.
[Also, no ‘motor’ is needed to ‘keep’ a non-rotating ferris wheel car from starting to rotate on its own axis. Instead, a torque would be needed to start the car rotating.]
Some will, I am sure, disagree. Not because they can find any specific error, but merely because evidence and logic cannot penetrate their thinking to actually affect their conclusions.
Tim, you can ramble as long as you want. You may even be able to type longer blah-blah than Norman.
But, your words mean zilch, if you can’t stand by them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326366
I stand by everything I have said here. Everything I said is backed by basic principles of mechanics that have been around since the time of Newton. If you disagree — then point to actual laws/equations/calculations that contradict what I say.
YOUR words, however, mean less than zilch if you cannot defend them using basic principles of mechanics that have been around since the time of Newton. Heck, you don’t even TRY to defend your words! You just claim persecution and claim that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD just doesn’t understand!
Tim, you falsely misrepresented me. You claimed that I had said “orbiting” was TWO motions. I never said such. You kept on with your claims, to the point of dishonesty. I asked for a link to just ONE time I had said “orbiting” was TWO motions. You could not supply a link.
You just keep on, as if I’m the one falsifying things. You have tried several times to misdirect. All of this is here, for all to see.
Including this instance of you previously understanding “my” definition of “orbiting”. In fact, you understood it so well, you criticized it.
“JD, I think I said this once before. You are welcome to create and promote your own definition of ‘orbit’ relative to various rates of rotation and revolution. With your definition, neither the moon nor the wagon need to ‘rotate’ to keep the same side facing inward.”
So you clearly understood at that time, but now you are intent on twisting my words.
I suspect that you have now realized you were wrong, and are not trying to find some way to cover. You can’t cover up your mistakes with more cover up.
You need to admit your mistakes, and apologize to this blog.
That’s what is observed in comments Tim since it is JD not standing by JD’s own written words. Reprobate JD accepts JD’s own advice to become that reprobate since JD prefers to run away from JD’s own comments: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction.”
JD, Your “orbit” seems to be defined as an object carried in a circle around a central fixed point, such that one point on the object always faces the central fixed point. (For example, a penny riding without slipping on a turn table)
Is that a fair statement of what you consider an ‘orbit’? If not, then provide a succinct, clear, precise definition.
Tim, until you admit, and desist, changing my definitions, why would I want to supply any additional info?
JD shouldn’t want to supply additional info., doesn’t even need to, JD had it right the first time: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction.”
Just like the moon orbits in a large ~circle and changes direction keeping the same face forward.
JD, JD, JD!
“Tim, you falsely misrepresented me.”
“why would I want to supply any additional info?”
I attempted (ohhh so long ago) to *clarify* and *restate* your definition; to show how your definition is is every way identical to one pure translation and one pure rotation. Heck, I even used your source as a reference! So if I am right — if your “orbit” is indeed identical to a pure rotation (and I still claim it is!), then I misrepresented nothing. I simply restated.
Apparently you wouldn’t want to clarify, since you have been asked innumerable times and you prefer to do anything BUT clarify and defend your position. I can only assume this is because you have no answer, but I would be happy to be shown wrong.
In what way (other than words) is your orbit not a pure translation + a pure rotation?
For example,
* if a moon of radius “r” orbits (according to your definition of “orbit”) at a distance “R” from its planet (center to center) with an angular speed ω, then the point farthest from the planet moves in a circle of radius (R+r) with an angular ω speed around planet.
* If a moon of radius “r” orbits (according to everyone else’s definition of “orbit”) at a distance “R” from its planet (center to center) with an angular speed ω while also rotating on its axis at the same rate, ω, then the point farthest from the planet moves in a circle of radius (R+r) with an angular speed ω around planet.
What part of “your moon” using “your definition” is in any way different than “everyone else’s moon” using “anyone else’s definition?
Tim, your obsession to spin your way out of this is fascinating.
You attempted, several times to change my explanation of “orbiting”. Each time, I challenged you. Each time, you continues to try to change my words.
You got caught. You had made comments earlier where you indicated you understood my explanations.
Now you are on some failing mission to “cover your tracks”.
Even David A openly and sincerely apologized when he got caught.
Maybe you believe you are more devious than DA….
“You had made comments earlier where you indicated you understood my explanations.“
That’s true. Tim made that comment where he set out to describe how “orbital motion” could be described in just one motion, from either way of looking at the problem. I was impressed. I thought, “Tim has progressed from incredibly thick to actually having one of the best understandings out of all of them, in a very short time”…but, inevitably, they regress. Just like Norman. He started to get a glimmer of a clue…and so he had to go and confuse himself back into oblivion. Oh well.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Just like Norman. He started to get a glimmer of a clueand so he had to go and confuse himself back into oblivion. Oh well.”
Not at all correct DREMT. Your view is wrong and misleading. More like I was getting deceived by your false understanding until I actually did some real world test. I know that is why you make fun of Ball4 when he mentioned tests. It is the enemy or your mind state. You make up ideas and make fun of people who do actual tests to prove the idea bad. Maybe you come from PSI blog as g.e.r.a.n has. Unsupported garbage all day long on that blog.
I will attempt to reason with you again. You seem to get messed up with your thinking if you curve the path.
Don’t curve the path just go around in a square motion. You start with a seat at the bottom of the square. A stick figure rides the seat with its head pointed upward toward the center of the square.
Do you get this image? If not do an actual test like I did and don’t make fun of testing, it will enlighten you.
Move the seat to the right edge of the square, the head is still pointed upwards. No rotation of the seat right? Now move the seat up the right side of the square. Is the seat rotating as it moves up? Did it rotate at any time when you moved it along the bottom of the square? Did you need to rotate the seat to move it up the right side of the square?
Now see the position of the head as you move the seat up the right side of the square. The back of the head is pointed toward the center of the square not the head. Now move the seat toward the left along the top of the square. Have you rotated the seat yet? Now the feet are pointing to the center of the square not the head.
Do you see where this is going? Without rotation a viewer in the center of the square will see all sides of the figure in the seat.
Now do the same thing with rotation. When you reach the bottom right of the square rotate the seat 1/4 turn so the head still faces the center of the square. When you reach the top rotate the seat another 1/4 turn so the head is facing down. The only way to keep seeing the same side is by rotating the seat at each corner.
I am not sure why, if you curve the linear path, you suddenly have to change reality. Weird thought process you have DREMT. Not very logical.
Norman, spend the $20 and do some experimenting.
You might learn something, and you can’t get hurt. It’s child-proof.
https://www.amazon.com/Gerson-Lighted-Moving-Musical-Ferris/dp/B0753GCK1V/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1540304543&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=lighted+ferris+wheel&psc=1
: – )
HD, if it makes you feel better, I am perfectly happy to agree that you never *said* that the moon is undergoing a pure translation plus a pure rotation.
***********************************
Can you now focus on the physics you have been avoiding? We’ll keep it simple for you.
1) Is there a net torque about the center of mass of a train car / horse / child’s wagon as it enters a turn?
2) Is Στ = Iα correct?
3( Given (1) and (2) does the horse/train/car/child’s wagon gain an angular velocity, about its center of mass?
Tim, you are the one that violated the decency of public debate. So, it makes since that you are “perfectly happy” to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility for your deceptions.
To make things right, the offended party needs to be “perfectly happy”.
JD, truly, I merely noted that your “orbit” is mathematically and physically equivalent to a combination of pure translation and pure rotation.
DO YOU DISAGREE? Do you think your “orbit” in any way different from one pure translation around the central point and one pure rotation around the object’s center of mass?
Tim, you can not be that stupid.
You are trying to change my clear description of “orbiting”.
Quit with the spin. Is that all you can do?
Tim is not changing JD’s description at all, just JD runs away from JD’s own correct comments: “Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle..Yes the wagon is changing direction.”
Ball4 says, “Tim is not…correct…orbiting can be…pulling a child’s…” so Ball4 appears to be trailing into incoherency, too much spinning on Ball4’s axis and taking others words out of full context to support Ball4’s relentless and repetitive agenda has left Ball4 rolling out of control down an entirely straight road, which due to Ball4’s strict definitions of translation is of course actually translation plus rotation, since Ball4 agrees rectilinear translation cannot exist on a sphere, even on a 100 meter straight road, in Ball4’s own words, as confirmed by Dr Spencer’s test, as conducted by Clausius, no heat, no heat, please delete heat from existence, Ball4, Ball4, own words, confirmed by test.
–Rather than a horse or wagon, lets make it a train car. The train car is rolling at steady speed down a flat, straight track. No net force; no net torque.
Then it comes to a corner (to the left for sake of discussion). The track starts to apply a force to the left ON THE FRONT WHEELS but not the rear wheels. This causes a net force to the side. And it applies a net TORQUE (CCW as seen from above, or upward using the stardard right hand rule for torque) about the center of mass of the train car. This cause the train car to start to turn to the left around the corner (net force) AND start to rotate about its own axis (net torque).–
I should noted the if you bank the curve, then you reduce this TORQUE [or “could” eliminate it completely], and train track are inclined for corners. Horses will lean when going around corner, as will motercycle drivers.
gbaikie, the tracks can cause the train to turn, but they can NOT cause the train to “rotate on its own axis”.
“the tracks can cause the train to turn”
Correct JD, in the turns but not on the straightaways where you also have it right – for straight track “they can NOT cause the train to “rotate on its own axis””.
The Moon’s axis is about 1.5 degrees relative to the Sun and is not 1.5 degrees relative to Earth.
The moon does not spin on it’s 1.5 degree axis relative to the sun in regard to Earth or the Earth/Moon barycenter [and btw this barycenter is always on side of earth facing the Moon- or every day this barycenter passes under, roughly, your feet/butt at about 1000 mph- and it isn’t spinning on it’s axis either- it can’t have an axis though is regarded as having a point- for mathematically convenience.]
tim…Rather than a horse or wagon, lets make it a train car. The train car is rolling at steady speed down a flat, straight track. No net force; no net torque.
Then it comes to a corner (to the left for sake of discussion). The track starts to apply a force to the left ON THE FRONT WHEELS but not the rear wheels. This causes a net force to the side”.
*********
A friend of mine drove semi-trailers rigs and every so often I’d take a run with him up country. There were times when we hit rather sharp left curves that I felt myself pinned against the passenger-side door. My butt was not sliding along the seat material since there was enough resistance with my weight to prevent that. It was my upper body at my shoulder that I felt pressed against the door/window.
I mentioned to my buddy that the only thing stopping us carrying on over the edge and into a canyon, was about the resistance of a square foot of rubber on each tire. That made little impact on him because truckers don’t seem to have much respect for physics.
My body being pressed against the door is about momentum. My body wanted to go straight and the truck door was pulling me to the left.
Semis have overturned in curves due to the load weight being too high. That happens especially when loads, like meat, are suspended from the roof of the semi trailer. On the corner, the suspended load want to go straight and there is nothing to re-direct it in the direction the truck is moving.
That sets up a lever arm with the suspended weight trying to follow the original straight path while the truck is trying to go left, for example. A torque develops with the trailer body as a lever with the suspended load acting as a weight pulling on the end of it. If the momentum of the suspended load is too great, it will cause a torque great enough to topple the trailer.
It’s not the force exerted by the rail on the right wheels of your train example as much as the torque created by the engine itself as the upper part tries to keep going straight while the wheels on the track try to pull the upper part in a new direction. A torque is developed, putting more weight on the right wheels (on a left turn) than on the left wheels.
Same thing as me sitting in the semi as it turns left. My body is certainly not rotating about my COG even though it could be argued that some kind of rotation due to torque is in play.
The rotation to which you refer with the horse or wagon is not the rotating in question. It is being argued by some that the Moon is rotating around its own axis as it orbits the Earth.
The torque to which you refer would cause the horse or wagon to fall over, and that could be regarded as a temporary rotation about its COG. The analogy of the horse, however, was posed in regard to the Moon orbiting the Earth. In that case, the horse would have to be turning in circles about it’s COG as it orbited.
The fact that the Moon, or horse, does turn through 360 degrees wrt to the Earth’s centre should not be regarded a rotation about the Moon’s COG. That is purely a result of curvilinear translation over a complete orbit.
“That is purely a result of curvilinear translation over a complete orbit.”
How long will it take to get through your thick skull that with curvilinear translation, the object ALWAYS remains pointed in the same direction?? Hello! McFly!!
The definition of curvilinear translation is not up for debate. It’s been known for almost 200 years.
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.
All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”.
“Translational motion: The orientation of the object is
unchanged during the motion.”
A horse rounding a curve is changing its direction continually, thus not meeting the above definition. The ferris wheel seat experiences curvilinear translation per the definition. What is wrong with you?? This is entry level kinematics.
SGW, the Moon and horse are both translational. The Ferris wheel seat is both orbiting AND rotating on an axel.
See if you can understand this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326405
The clowns continue to:
1. Redefine translation
As a matter of fact, they DON’T define it. They do not give a kinematic definition of translation. They just make blanket declarations.
Yes SGW, the clowns do try to change the definitions. They have to, because they actually claim a horse rotates on its own axis as it runs.
It’s almost as if they want to be stupid.
I had until now no concise meaning concerning wether or not the Moon rotates on its axis. All what I can say is that of three arbitrary chosen french sites looking accurate, none refutes this rotation:
http://jcboulay.free.fr/astro/sommaire/astronomie/univers/galaxie/etoile/systeme_solaire/terre1/lune/page_lune.htm
https://astronomia.fr/2eme_partie/planetes/3Terre/lune/lune.php
http://www.objet-celeste.wikibis.com/lune.php
*
I don’t want to translate all that stuff! Who is interested might use
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#fr/en/
I just pick up a little piece of the latter page:
On considère généralement la Terre et la Lune comme un couple planétaire, l'influence gravitationnelle du Soleil étant comparable à leur interaction mutuelle. Elles tournent autour de leur centre de masse commun, le barycentre du dispositif double. Comme ce dernier se trouve au sein de la Terre, à à peu près 4 700 kilomètres de son centre, le mouvement de la Terre est le plus souvent décrit comme une «oscillation».
Vues de leur pôle nord, la Terre et la Lune tournent sur elles-mêmes, la Lune tourne autour de la Terre et cette dernière tourne autour du Soleil, tous ces mouvements s'effectuant dans le sens direct (ou encore anti-horaire, c'est-à-dire contraire à celui des aiguilles d'une montre).
La période de rotation de la Lune est la même que sa période orbitale et elle présente par conséquent toujours la même face à un observateur terrestre. Cette rotation synchrone résulte des frottements qu'a entraînés la marée de la Terre sur la Lune qui ont progressivement amené la Lune à ralentir sa rotation sur elle-même, jusqu'à ce que la période de ce mouvement coïncide avec celle de la révolution de la Lune autour de la Terre. Le moment cinétique devant se conserver, la Lune s'éloigne de la Terre de 3,8 cm par année.
Translation by Google’s tool:
The Earth and the Moon are generally considered as a planetary pair, the gravitational influence of the Sun being comparable to their mutual interaction. They revolve around their common center of mass, the barycenter of the double device. Since the Earth is at about 4,700 kilometers from the center of the Earth, Earth’s motion is most often described as an “oscillation”.
Seen from their north pole, the Earth and the Moon turn on themselves, the Moon turns around the Earth and the latter revolves around the Sun, all these movements taking place in the direct direction (or counter-clockwise, that is, contrary to that of clockwise).
The period of rotation of the Moon is the same as its orbital period and is therefore always the same face to a terrestrial observer. This synchronous rotation results from the friction caused by the tide of the Earth on the Moon which gradually led the Moon to slow its rotation on itself, until the period of this movement coincides with that of the revolution of the Moon around the Earth. The kinetic moment to be preserved, the Moon moves away from the Earth of 3.8 cm per year.
*
A somewhat more precise description, found via the first link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tiSiZ666jyH6SqhNKKcN2HtwePI7N1iF/view
*
Sounds interesting and really intelligible.
OMG! Maybe I’m about to become a denier of the dogma ‘The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis’. Damn me, Oh Lord.
To be honest, I have some problems in thinking that people sending laser beams to the Moon with a duration of 300 or even 20 picoseconds to calculate Moon’s distance with 3 mm precision would not know wether or not the Moon rotates on itself:
http://wwwrc.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/instrum.htm
I sent a mail to one of the webmasters, maybe s/he replies with a link to a mathematically irrefutable proof.
On verra bien qui a raison!
Bindidon, there are TWO motions involved. You need to spend some effort to understand both motions. The two motions are “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. I have provided clear examples of each, numerous times. Those that choose to ignore the two well defined motions are either incompetent or dishonest. There really is no third choice, is there?
The Moon only has one of the two motions. It is “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
I asked you to stop replying to my comments.
And I will ask you to stop spreading pseudoscience that you don’t even understand.
You comply with my request, and I’ll be glad to comply with yours.
binny…”I asked you to stop replying to my comments”.
That makes you not only an idiot, but an immature idiot to boot.
Last time you sulked like this with a hissy fit, you bid us all adieu, only to show up a few days later as La Pagolina.
☺
As susal, Robertson: nothing else than insults.
The gratest idiot and ignorasnt boaster here nevertheless: that is YOU, Robertson.
binny…”The period of rotation of the Moon is the same as its orbital period and is therefore always the same face to a terrestrial observer”.
This is what we are debating. It would be an extraordinary fluke if the Moon did rotate on its axis exactly once per Earth orbit. Far too much of a coincidence.
It is better explained scientifically as a curvilinear translation, which accomplishes the same effect, with one face of the Moon always toward the Earth.
Rectilinear translation means that all particles in a rigid body will travel in the same direction parallel to the path straight line motion.
Curvilinear translation is the same, except the path can have a curve in it. With a curve, the path can be described as a series of paths tangential to the curve. As long as the instantaneous motion of all particles in the body are parallel to a tangent line to the curve, the motion is curvilinear.
There is nothing in the definition of curvilinear translation to claim the curved path cannot curve back on itself to form a complete oval. As long as all particles move parallel to tangent lines to the curve, it is curvilinear translation.
During such a translation, the rigid body will rotate through 360 degrees wrt the centre of the oval. It also keeps the same face toward the oval. At no time, does the body rotate about it’s own axis, however. That would require an angular velocity on the Moon’s circumference which would necessitate the side facing the Earth to move away from it.
It’s an illusion. If the body did rotate through 360 degrees about its own axis, the face pointed to the oval would have to rotate through 360 degrees, therefore it would have to point elsewhere.
Since the Earth turns some 30 times during that hypothesized rotation, we would see all sides of the Moon at some point.
It is not a fluke. It is tidally locked. Clearly you haven’t been paying attention.
“Curvilinear translation is the same, except the path can have a curve in it. With a curve, the path can be described as a series of paths tangential to the curve”
WRONG! Gordon, you continue to redefine “translation”. A series of tangential paths to the curve does not meet the definition of translation! How many times must I post the true definition of translation?? If you want to be taken seriously, you must stop making up your own definitions. An object translating always points in the same direction. Like you said, the path of the horse can be described as a series of paths tangential to the curve. That is true. But that is NOT translational motion.
“There is nothing in the definition of curvilinear translation to claim the curved path cannot curve back on itself to form a complete oval. As long as all particles move parallel to tangent lines to the curve, it is curvilinear translation.”
WRONG! You keep redefining translation, over and over. A rigid body translating does NOT rotate. For translation to occur, a line through the object remains pointing in the same direction throughout the motion. The line remains parallel to its original position, not to its direction of travel.
If an object on an orbital path is not translating, then by the kinematic definitions of general place motion, the object’s center of mass will be translating along the orbital path, while the object rotates about its center of mass.
“place” = “plane”
Wrong again, SGW. “Orbiting” is definitely “transitional motion”. Orbiting does not cause “rotation on it own axis”.
You remain confused.
“Orbiting does not cause “rotation on it own axis”.”
For an object in space that’s a good point JD – sometimes you do get it right. An orbiting object does not necessarily have spin though it is rare or even unobserved.
In that specific orbiting case your analogy of the red wagon would not exactly apply as the wagon has rotational forcings that don’t exist for an orbiting object in space that has no pull handle, no steering, no ground contact. The rotation of the moon on its own axis (and many other objects) though has been modulated by the object it is orbiting through tidal forces over time to present day rotation rate.
The term “orbiting” simply means an object is following an orbital path. It says nothing about whether the object is translating or rotating on its axis.
Once again the clowns make up their own definition of terms.
SGW wins the award for “most repetitive”.
–SkepticGoneWild says:
October 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM
The term orbiting simply means an object is following an orbital path. It says nothing about whether the object is translating or rotating on its axis.
Once again the clowns make up their own definition of terms.–
I prefer an object traveling straight in spacetime.
And hohmann transfer is immediately going slower or going faster traveling straight in spacetime.
Ball4 says:
October 24, 2018 at 10:36 AM
Orbiting does not cause rotation on it own axis.
For an object in space thats a good point JD sometimes you do get it right. An orbiting object does not necessarily have spin though it is rare or even unobserved.”
If you go into space and you are spinning, it tends to be a bad sign.
Our moon and I suppose there other moons which don’t spin.
Do the two moons of Mars spin.
I am not Mars fanatic, and I don’t remember.
JDHuffman says:
October 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM
Orbiting does not cause “rotation on it own axis”.
________________________________________________
Yes, it doesnt.
Its the tidal force which causes a non-rotating body to rotate.
“Our moon and I suppose there other moons which don’t spin.”
That is wrong by simple inspection.
“Do the two moons of Mars spin.”
All observed moons spin. Tidally locked moons spin to keep the same face forwards just like a race horse on a closed track and JD’s child’s wagon.
Fritz claims: Yes, it doesn’t. It’s the tidal force which causes a non-rotating body to rotate.”
Fritz, if you ever get to take a physics class, you may learn that gravity does not cause “rotating on its own axis”.
In fact pseudoscience claims the “tidal locking” slows “rotating on its own axis”. Which, of course, tangles them up in their own web of deception.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until the tidal slowing stopped, forever” with the moon no longer slowing but rotating on its axis once per orbit by simple inspection.
This is what makes discussions with JD (and his ilk) so fascinating and simultaneously so frustrating. They present some correct information, but fail to actually grasp the importance of their own words.
Case in point — yaaaaay back near the top JD provided correct info about curvilinear motion, acting as ‘teacher’ for the thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324698
However, this is NOT what the moon does. The velocity of the far side is greater than the velocity of the near side as it goes around the earth. Thus with a trivial application of knowledge JD accepts, we all can trivial conclude that the moon does NOT undergo curvilinear motion.
Rather than face facts, the JD-sort either 1) argue about anything else or 2) pound the table harder.
*********************************
1) JD, does YOUR REFERENCE for curvilinear motion require all the points of the body have the same velocity?
[clearly yes — I just quoted it!]
2) JD, does every point on the moon have the same velocity?
[clearly no — as just explained]
Given these two facts, JD, you can now come to one of three conclusions.
a) you now disown your own statement about curvilinear motion
b) you think all parts of the moon actually DO have the same velocity.
c) you now realize the moon is NOT an example of curvilinear motion.
Choose one JD — a, b, or c.
Tim, I choose “F”, for fraud!
You misrepresented my words, several times, avoiding my objection. You will not admit it. You just try to spin your way out.
Did you happen to notice both “fraud” and “Folkerts” begin with letter “F”?
An Tim, I never know if you clowns are incompetent, dishonest, or some combination of the two.
You claimed that “JD provided”, but your link was to a comment by Gordon Robertson!
So, are you:
a) Incompetent
b) Dishonest
c) Both a) and b)
OK … I did make one error. I have been attributing some of Gordon’s statements to JD. For that I apologize.
That’s a start.
Now please continue.
“Tim Folkerts”, better known as “Dim Frauds”.
Hey Dim, have you got your next fraud planned yet?
Misrepresenting my words hasn’t worked too well, huh?
Maybe consult some other reprobates, like fluffball, or Norman Grinvalds.
Both of them are good at misrepresenting others.
Birds of a feather….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-324698
“However, this is NOT what the moon does. The velocity of the far side is greater than the velocity of the near side as it goes around the earth. Thus with a trivial application of knowledge JD accepts, we all can trivial conclude that the moon does NOT undergo curvilinear motion.”
Without being pulled, the farside would go slower, because it’s further from the barycenter. Or anything further from center of gravity, goes slower [lower velocity]. But since it’s pulled it’s going faster than at that distance should be, but not faster the the rest of the moon.
gbaikie, all parts of the Moon are traveling with the same velocity as the center of mass.
skeptic…”Gordon, you continue to redefine “translation”. A series of tangential paths to the curve does not meet the definition of translation!”
How else to you define a curve?
The problem here is your lack of background in mathematics and physics.
SGW does not understand “translational motion”. He probably never had a toy train. A toy train moving on a circular track is a perfect example of “translational motion”, or “orbiting’. The tracks are tangentially parallel. The motion is translational.
“Norman, if the motor rotated the seats at the exact same rate that the Ferris wheel moves round, but in the opposite direction, the cookies would not fall out. You understood this before. Now why have you suddenly rejected this?”
*******
Not only would the cookies fall out, so would Mrs. Puff.
OK Snape.
Her idea could be restated using a potter’s wheel and a can of beans:
Place the can on the potter’s wheel, label facing north, and give the wheel a spin CCW. How do you keep the label from changing its orientation?
She thinks the can needs to be rotated CW.
Actually, you just need to hold on to the can, and let the potter’s wheel spin without it.
(If you twisted the can, instead of holding it straight, the label would no longer face north. Similarly, If you rotated the riders on a Ferris wheel, instead of allowing them the remain upright, they would need a good seat belt)
*******
A compass is no different – when the compass body rotates WRT to north, the magnetic needle is not required to participate.
OK Snape.
Bin
She’ll stop replying if you call her Mrs. Puff. Works for me, anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Puff
“Mrs. Puff was married to another blowfish named Mr. Puff in the past (DREMT ?), but he was captured by humans and turned into a novelty lamp.”
And who could read one of Gordon’s comments, and not be reminded of Patrick Star?
“Seen as an overweight, dimwitted pink starfish, Patrick lives under a rock in the underwater city of Bikini Bottom……”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Star
snape….”And who could read one of Gordon’s comments, and not be reminded of Patrick Star?”
Said by someone who lives ion a fantasy world of cartoon thought-experiments. I have tried to tell snape that real science deals with the real world.
Would not be so bad if your thought experiments had any merit. Au contraire, they are fairy tale scenarios from fairy tale worlds.
No point commenting on me, snape, when you haven’t the foggiest notion of the real science I am trying to communicate.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “No point commenting on me, snape, when you haven’t the foggiest notion of the real science I am trying to communicate.”
Thanks for the morning laugh. You make up so much BS it is funny.
When your endless false ideas are explained to you with real science you ignore them or come up with some totally made up ideas.
You are very far from any science at all. You make up most of the stuff you post or get it from goofy blogs like PSI where they just make up whatever they want.
Norman, thanks for the morning laugh. You make up so much BS it is funny.
When your endless false ideas are explained to you with real science you ignore them or come up with some totally made up ideas.
But, at least you can type.
JDHuffman
None of my ideas are false. They are textbook physics. You think textbook physics is pseudoscience so no one can help you. Far to gone in your make believe reality.
I give you several links to textbook physics. That you choose to ignore them is only your fault.
You are lying and dishonest when you present your misleading declarations here. I do not make up science or declare false concepts. That is what you and Gordon Robertson do. Most posters refer to actual science and physics. You do not, you just declare made up material and taunt people.
Ball4 is correct about your function on this blog. You are to amuse and entertain and teach posters that they should read some real physics or they will become like you. No one wants to become like you. You have value in your made up garbage. It teaches people how NOT to do science.
The correct way is to study some material usually textbooks and do some experiments. Something you will no do.
Norman, your brain-dead opinions are funny, but your flimsy, farcical pseudoscience is the best!
Try to always include some pseudoscience, with your vapid opinions, for the best comedy.
Thanks.
norman…”Ball4 is correct about your function on this blog”.
Ball4, another comedian who thinks heat does not exist and is only a measure of energy. He doesn’t get it that we have such a measure of said energy, temperature, and that the energy in question is thermal energy, aka heat.
According to bally, heat is a measure of heat.
Bally fails to understand that kinetic energy is not energy per se but a descriptor for any kind of energy in motion. KE can describe thermal energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, mechanical energy and so forth. However, bally thinks heat is a measure of KE, under the guise of internal energy.
In fact, the whole load of you alarmists don’t understand energy, even at a basic level. That’s why you support the pseudo-science of AGW while allowing heat to be transferred from a colder object to a hotter object.
Gordon, heat is a measure of total energy and temperature is a measure of average energy.
Gordon writes: “kinetic energy is not energy”
With that, it is evident Gordon doesn’t understand energy, even at a basic level. Gordon can’t comprehend the basics of AGW and continues to write nonsense about atm. thermodynamics.
norman…”Thanks for the morning laugh. You make up so much BS it is funny”.
Coming from someone who thinks the 2nd law allows for a two way transfer of heat between bodies of different temperatures, and who thinks radiation from a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body that heated the cooler body in the first place.
1:56am: More nonsense from Gordon.
– a potter’s wheel and a can of beans
– a pencil and paper
– a thermometer and candle
– a parking garage
******
Patrick says:
“Au contraire, they are fairy tale scenarios from fairy tale worlds.”
Oh, and how could I forget that mythical instrument…….compass and needle?
OK Snape.
Here is another attempt to explain the extremely simple moon rotation concept:
https://tinyurl.com/Rotation-Within-Rotation
“No” and “Yes”.
Hahahahaha – you’re a comedian.
Consider it like it is a vertical example, rather than horizontal, and the motion of the square is like the toy Ferris wheel chair set to “Reverse”, or a Ferris wheel chair operating normally (looks the same).
Exactly. And the chair is not rotating. It remains aligned with the vertical.
“Exactly”.
See, Des, I knew you understood the toy Ferris wheel example. You have one up on Norman and Snape.
Yes, I understand that from the reference frame you refer to, the chair does not appear to be rotating. I also understand that most people would simply say, “is not rotating”.
des, if you believe a Ferris wheel chair is not rotating about the axle supporting it, then do the experiment.
1) Buy the inexpensive toy.
2) Glue the seats to their axles, so they can’t rotate.
3) Start the Ferris wheel and watch what happens.
https://www.amazon.com/Gerson-Lighted-Moving-Musical-Ferris/dp/B0753GCK1V/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1540304543&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=lighted+ferris+wheel&psc=1
Also, your sketch shows the object orbiting but NOT rotating on its own axis.
The object (square) is “orbiting” CCW whilst “rotating on its axis” CW.
You’re correct DREMT. I should have been clearer.
The “square” is indeed “rotating on its own axis”, as it orbits. That allows the “red object” to always be facing the center of the orbit, i.e. appearing as NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
des confuses the issue, possibly purposely….
“The object (square) is “orbiting” CCW whilst “rotating on its axis” CW.”
Ha! The dimwits rediscover epicycles.
FYI, epicycles, complex spirograph-like motions of the planets were invented, rather than accepting a much simpler idea of planets orbiting the sun, because it did not fit their belief system.
Nate properly connects Spinners to epicycles.
Good job, Nate.
JD
I put a pencil in a hole in a piece of cardboard, then turn the pencil while holding the cardboard steady. By your ferris wheel BS, you believe it is the cardboard that is rotating about the pencil.
This debacle reminds me of my teenager, who when he hit 13 or so, decided to wear shorts all winter. No matter what logic we used or how annoyed we got with him, didnt seem to matter. Made him more determined to be an idiot.
So we finally gave up. Be really cold if you want, we said. And eventually he grew out of it.
No matter what logic we use, the ding dongs here seem determined to give the middle finger to institutional science and anybody who represents it.
So, maybe time to give up and let em be idiots. Let them have their own private, weird, definitions of translation, orbit, rotation.
Maybe they’ll eventually grow out of it, probably not.
des probably doesn’t understand his own graphic.
There are THREE different motions.
1) The square platform, containing the red object, is orbiting.
2) The square platform, containing the red object, is rotating on its own axis, CW.
3) The red object is rotating on its own axis, CCW.
–JDHuffman says:
October 24, 2018 at 2:15 PM
des probably doesn’t understand his own graphic.
There are THREE different motions.
1) The square platform, containing the red object, is orbiting.
2) The square platform, containing the red object, is rotating on its own axis, CW.
3) The red object is rotating on its own axis, CCW.–
All I see is CCW rotation.
The problem is Moon has axis tilt of 1.5 degrees to sun and it’s not tilted 1.5 degrees to Earth.
If Moon orbit was 0 degree inclination to Earth and Sun, it’s possible.
Or a problem is diagram is 2 D and reality is 3 D
JD
The square platform is NOT rotating on its own axis. It maintains the same orientation throughout. An AXLE (NOT an axis) is rotating while permitting the platform to have no rotation.
The entire kinetic energy of the square platform is equal to its orbital kinetic energy.
des, you better get out your pencil and cardboard, again.
If you want the square platform to be rotating on its axis, that’s okay.
Of course, you have to have something to hold it in place, as its “axle” would be moving.
But maybe you don’t understand multiple motions….
Thank God the square got the permission from the axle not to rotate. Axles are always necessary to make rotation not happen.
So you cannot visualise a mechanism for for maintaining the orientation of the square platform while it orbits? How sad – I guess you have no practical experience.
Next time perhaps you should space your posts by more than 4 minutes – just to maintain the facade of being two different people.
–Nate says:
October 24, 2018 at 1:58 PM
This debacle reminds me of my teenager, who when he hit 13 or so, decided to wear shorts all winter. No matter what logic we used or how annoyed we got with him, didnt seem to matter. Made him more determined to be an idiot.
So we finally gave up. Be really cold if you want, we said. And eventually he grew out of it.
No matter what logic we use, the ding dongs here seem determined to give the middle finger to institutional science and anybody who represents it.
So, maybe time to give up and let em be idiots. Let them have their own private, weird, definitions of translation, orbit, rotation.
Maybe theyll eventually grow out of it, probably not.–
Maybe. But the Scots didn’t grow out of wearing their kilts.
Bob,
That was a very clear and simple explanation, but our resident 3 simpletons STILL won’t get it.
They do not have a grasp of simple kinematics. They keep trying to describe the motion of the object wrt a rotating reference frame, rather than the inertial reference frame. And they make up their own definitions of already established kinematic principles, which is why they have EVERYTHING backwards. Their stupidity is breathtaking.
SGW, have you ordered that toy Ferris wheel yet?
bob…”Here is another attempt to explain the extremely simple moon rotation concept:”
How does the square platform move in a circle while still remaining upright?
If the platform was fixed to a rail around a track, it would be forced to turn as it orbited the track? We are not talking about a translating axis moving in a curve, we are talking about a rigid body with one face tidally-locked to the Earth.
That’s equivalent to attaching a rope to the horn on a horse’s saddle and having the horse turn in circles around you. If the horse turned around it’s own axis, it would become entangled in the rope.
Since all parts of the horse are moving perpendicular to the taut rope, the horse is performing curvilinear translation.
Upright?? Did you actually read what I wrote?
If a rod coming out from the bottom of the square platform were inserted into a vertical frictionless tube at the end of a rotating arm, when the arm begins to rotate the platform would not rotate.
I had this wooden horse, that was bolted on securely to a merry-go-round. The damn thing kept rotating on its axis every time I started the merry-go-round! So I thought, “I know. I’ll mount it on an axle. That will stop it from rotating”. And it did. Physically making it possible for an object to rotate on its own axis is the first and most important thing you need to do, in order to stop that object from rotating on its own axis.
bob…”Upright?? Did you actually read what I wrote?
If a rod coming out from the bottom of the square platform were inserted into a vertical frictionless tube at the end of a rotating arm, when the arm begins to rotate the platform would not rotate”.
You did not write anything other than posting a link to an article. My response was to the article. I want to know why they have the platform sitting still as it turns while a person rotates inside it.
It’s a bogus example that demonstrates nothing related to what we are discussing.
“How does the square platform move in a circle while still remaining upright?”
You shouldn’t even have to ask that question. It’s movement is defined that way, just as when the object remains upright when moving horizontal in the top figure. It’s movement is defined to not change its orientation.
“If the platform was fixed to a rail around a track, it would be forced to turn as it orbited the track?”
Yes. BUT once again, the platform is defined to not NOT change its orientation while performing the circular motion, much like a ferris wheel gondola. Why are you even asking this question? The platform is NOT fixed to a track.
“That’s equivalent to attaching a rope to the horn on a horse’s saddle and having the horse turn in circles around you. If the horse turned around it’s own axis, it would become entangled in the rope.”
No, the horse will NOT become entangled in the rope because it is rotating on its axis 360 degrees per every one orbit around the person.
“Since all parts of the horse are moving perpendicular to the taut rope, the horse is performing curvilinear translation.”
NO!!!! All throughout this discussion you have been using the WRONG definition of curvilinear translation! Curvilinear translation requires the object to remain pointing in the same direction ALWAYS throughout its motion around a curve. Perhaps you are confusing the term curvilinear translation with curvilinear motion? They are not the same. Curvilinear motion is a general term used for a particle or object that moves along a curve. Curvilinear translation is a specific movement along a curve where the object always points in the same direction, just like the gondola on a ferris wheel.
You need to go to your local university and get a textbook on kinematics and read the definitions of the terms used.
I bought the toy Ferris wheel, and glued the seats to their axles so they were no longer able to rotate on their axes. It was no longer physically possible for them to do so, which meant that when I started the Ferris wheel, the seats rotated on their axis once per “orbit”. I was glad that making something physically impossible, ensured it was not only possible, but definitely happened. I wasn’t mad or stupid.
SGW advises: “You need to go to your local university and get a textbook on kinematics and read the definitions of the terms used.”
SGW, you are not able to understand textbooks. You have clearly indicated that here. When the MIT example problem said “It is not rotating on its axis”, you just brushed it off, saying it was a “statics” problem, so it didn’t count.
You have no interest in understanding.
Skeptic…let’s get something straight, you don’t know curvilinear motion from a hole in the ground.
Rectinlinear translation is defined by particles in a body all moving parallel to the direction of translation.
Curvilinear motion is the same thing but the particles are moving parallel to the curve. Since you don’t like the idea of parallelism to a curve, I have defined it as parallelism to a tangent to the curve.
If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand curves, calculus, or kinematics.
The Moon is such a rigid body is which all it’s particles move parallel to tangents lines to the curve at a point. The particles are not turning around a central axis. That’s an illusion which has sucked you guys in royally.
Same with a horse. None of it’s particles are turning about a central axis WITH RESPECT TO THE HORSE.
Do yourself a favour and cut the crap about obfuscating reality. There are no frames of reference in reality and you have to learn to view reality from a non-personal POV.
Although particles at the atomic size can behave differently, we live in a world with macro-sized, rigid bodies, like the Moon, and they do not behave according to human induced reference frames.
The initial claim was that the Moon does not rotate around its axis. Never mind the crap about reference frames and viewing the Moon relative to them. Look at the reference frame of the Moon only and show me how it has angular momentum about its own axis.
The sci-fi that it rotates exactly once per Earth orbit is total bs.
So the correct definition of curvilinear translation stares Gordon right in the face, and he ignores it, and comes up with his own.
“Rectinlinear translation is defined by particles in a body all moving parallel to the direction of translation. Curvilinear motion is the same thing but the particles are moving parallel to the curve.” [Gordon’s personal definition]
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”
[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
What part of “remains parallel to its original position” don’t you get??
Gordon continues:
“Since you dont like the idea of parallelism to a curve, I have defined it as parallelism to a tangent to the curve.”
This has nothing to do with what I like. Motion moving tangent to a curve is changing direction continually. Curvilinear translation requires the object to point in the same direction all the time, just like the gondola on a ferris wheel.
Gordon squawks:
“The sci-fi that it rotates exactly once per Earth orbit is total bs.”
Go back to Joseph Postma’s site and proclaim that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. You and the clown JD, both. See what happens. Explain to him that a horse running a circular track does not rotate on its own axis, and all the rest of the stuff you spout.
SGW, do the simple coffee cup experiment. It demonstrates transitional motion so well that even clowns should be able to understand it.
Merely tape two felt tip markers to opposite sides of the cup. The markers are taped vertically, so they can mark the surface as the cup moves.
In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the center. This is, of course, PURE orbital motion. The circles do not cross.
In Figure B, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the same direction, such as north. This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles. This is two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
The circles do not cross because the cup is rotating on its own axis by simple inspection. The cup kept facing forward by being rotated on its own axis into the direction of movement just like a race horse on a closed track.
Go to page 23 (Titled “Center of Mass”) at the following link. Page numbers are at the bottom right of the page:
http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf
The illustration shows a baton toss. It states 2 important concepts when discussing rotational motion:
1. bodies have a center-of-mass which just translates.
2. rotations occur about an axis through the center of mass.
As noted in the illustration, the baton’s motion can be described as a combination of rotation and translation. The baton is rotating about its center of mass, plus the baton’s center of mass is translating along the curved path.
Same thing with the horse walking in a circle. The horse is rotating about its center of mass, while its center of mass is translating along the circle.
Go to page 1 of “Basic Logic”. If something cannot happen because it is physically impossible, it doesn’t.
Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!? Hello!? McFly!? Hello!? Hello!?
Apropos for a Toady. DREMT worships a well known bully.
Apropos for the ignorant, Nate ignores that “Hello, McFly!” is SGW’s catchphrase. I did indeed think it was odd how SGW modelled himself on Biff Tannen, the dim-witted bully from Back to the Future.
SGW, print out the two representations of the baton. One end of the baton is slightly different in color from the other end. Now, draw a line connect each end as it moves. Notice that in the figure on the right, the lines would be crossing. They clearly have the two figures reversed.
JDHuffman
The only one who has things backwards is you and your companion in blissful ignorance (DREMT).
SkepticGoneWild is totally correct as are all the scientists you reject. I think they train you on Principia Scientific International to just declare things and that makes them science.
How you see Ferris Wheel seats rotating backwards is beyond me. They are NOT rotating.
For DREMT. Do you possess even a little reasoning ability?
You can have multiple situations with a seat and an axle.
You can have a seat that does not rotate but the axle does (as in a Ferris wheel). You can have a case where the axle does not rotate but the seat does (either CW or CCW does not matter the cookies will still fall out). You can have a case where both the axle and the seat rotate.
Why in the world do you feel you are correct in your thoughts that a Ferris Wheel seat is rotating as it moves around? Not sure how you can consider yourself to be a rational human.
I hope you know JDHuffman is trolling. I am not sure if you actually think the seat rotates or if you are also trolling.
“The only one who has things backwards is you and your companion in blissful ignorance (DREMT).”
And I guess Gordon, gbaikie, AndyG55 and Snape…
“For DREMT. Do you possess even a little reasoning ability?“
Yes, thank you. You?
“Not sure how you can consider yourself to be a rational human.”
Are you saying I am not human, not rational, or both? Possibly a little offensive Norman, but I’m guessing that you will say it is only an observation, not an insult, so you will stand by it. Good for you! Sorry you are so confused by something so basic, but that isn’t really my problem.
Norman, did you connect the ends of the baton, like I mentioned? Did you buy the toy Ferris wheel?
You haven’t done any of the experiments?
All you’ve done is type frantically, avoiding all facts and logic, hoping to outrun reality.
Maybe if you just rant hysterically, in even longer typing frenzies….
norman…”Why in the world do you feel you are correct in your thoughts that a Ferris Wheel seat is rotating as it moves around?”
If it did not, during it’s orbit, people would be upside down in the seat and they’d fall out.
Gordon,
The ferris wheel seat is translating. A translating object does not rotate about its own axis.
If the seat did rotate wrt the inertial reference frame, the people would fall out.
Poor SGW, he never heard of a planet called Earth: ” A translating object does not rotate about its own axis.”
skeptic…”Same thing with the horse walking in a circle”.
The horse and the baton have nothing in common. A better example of the baton would be the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
If you throw the baton straight up so it falls straight down, while it is rotating about its COG, it is performing both rectilinear translation and rotation.
If you toss it away from you so it follows an arc through the air, while rotating about its COG, it is performing curvilinear motion and rotation.
Why don’t you get it that the baton is rotating about it’s COG and the horse is not.
“If you throw the baton straight up so it falls straight down, while it is rotating about its COG, it is performing both rectilinear translation and rotation.”
WRONG. Translation requires the object to remain parallel to its original position. If the baton is rotating it’s not translating.
Do you see the baton rotating in the following illustration of curvilinear translation?
https://tinyurl.com/yd2tbndw
Why don’t you get that you are screwing up all the standard kinematic definitions that have been known for almost 200 years?
SGW remains confused: “If the baton is rotating it’s not translating.”
First, the object in you link is not a baton.
Second, it is possible to have both translational and rotational motions at the same time, as Earth is doing.
In you link, notice the lines connecting same points are always instantaneously parallel. That is translational motion, like a train on an oval track, and the Moon.
Huffy
You can say the Ferris wheel chair is rotating about the axle supporting it. That’s one way of looking at it.
But what matters to the riders, and the engineers who designed it, is that the chair is not rotating WRT the ground.
DREMT
“The object (square) is “orbiting” CCW whilst “rotating on its axis” CW.
That’s one way of looking at it. The square is not, however, rotating WRT your screen.
Glad to hear you have got over your previous confusion, and are at least back on both lists.
DREMT aka JD aka G***n has got to be the stupidest moron on this planet. What kind of imbecile enjoys making himself look like a total dimwit in front of an audience?
ThickticGoneThick, please stop thick-ing.
Team Dork needs to:
1. Give a kinematic definition of “orbiting”
2. Cite a university resource that backs up the definition.
TGT needs to:
1. Stop ignoring what people are patiently explaining to him over and over again.
2. Stop repeating things that are already understood, over and over and over and over and over again.
3. Please stop thick-ing.
Whoosh
Whoosh.
DREMT
If you placed a can on a potter’s wheel that’s rotating CCW, do you think the can would need to be rotated CW in order to remain facing north?
Next time you find yourself on a merry-go-round, sitting on your wooden horse firmly bolted to the floor, physically unable to rotate on its own axis, and you are going around, telling yourself, “hmmm, well I am facing north, then, west, then south, then east, so from the x reference frame I am rotating on my own axis”; maybe draw a chalk circle next to the horse you are on. If you believe that the atoms comprising the floor within the circle are rotating around an axis through their center as the merry-go-round revolves, from ANY reference frame, please seek professional help.
I guess I need professional help, but you may as well, DREMT.
Next time you are on a merry go round, stand at the center as it spins. Look up. The sky is spinning around. You feel dizzy. You conclude that you are rotating.
Questions questions to see if you need professional help.
1. Are your ears also rotating? If not, how do you make sense of that, since YOU are rotating and they are part of YOU? Hmmm..
2. Step an inch off the center. Are you still rotating or not? Look up. Is the sky still spinning? Are you still dizzy? Explain.
3. Step a foot off the center. Same questions as 2. Explain.
4. If on the outside edge, and walk to the center, do you suddenly begin rotating only when you reach the exact center? What causes your sudden rotation?
If the person’s center of mass is exactly over the center of the merry-go-round, the motion would represent “rotating on its own axis”.
If the person’s center of mass was different from the center of the merry-go-round, then the motion would be “orbiting”.
Nate, if you don’t understand what the center of mass of an object is, just say.
All you doing is repeating the “Steve Richards” line of logic in order to reject another analogy. Well, all analogies break down at some point, but if you want one that holds up, in that regard, try:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326293
The wooden horse is not rotating about its center of mass, but it is rotating (revolving) about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. It’s not like I’m saying rotation isn’t occurring, it’s just “what is the axis of rotation?”, that is important.
If the person’s center of mass was different from the center of the merry-go-round, then the motion would be “orbiting” AND “rotating on its own axis” once due conservation of angular momentum no matter the ref. frame. Getting this wrong repeatedly is a clue to revealing those that haven’t passed a basic physics course.
I will let you guys confuse yourselves for a while.
During this “while” please identify a basic college course covering conservation of angular momentum and manage to pass.
Poor fluffball, he still believes a horse is rotating on its axis as it runs the racetrack.
AND, he actually believes he understands physics!
So funny.
Poor JD still living in a dream world believing a horse runs down the backstretch ass first since it never rotated on its axis as it runs the racetrack.
AND, JD actually wants us to believe JD has passed basics college physics!
So hilarious, more please & do try to conserve angular momentum as not doing so reveals so much.
And, true to form, fluffball now starts the false accusations and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Ball4
Yes indeed. JDHuffman has zero physics background and is unable to read enough material to gain any knowledge of the subject.
Yes he is for entertainment only. When he posts consider it an amusing piece of nonsense that we can all enjoy and laugh with him.
The odd thing is JDHuffman trolls, contradicts all basic physics (radiative fluxes don’t add, Moon doesn’t rotate, a colder object will have no effect on a heated warmer object)all these points go totally against all established experimentally proven physics, and yet you have his best buddy DREMT, Gordon Robertson believe his nonsense and think it is right. It is hilarious that he is able to get others to accept his nonsense.
Let him continue to entertain.
Perfect! The super-typist, super-clown Norman joins fluffball in a comedy spectacular!
Fluffball tosses out “angular momentum” because he probably saw someone else use the term. Obviously, he knows noting about it. It’s very similar to poor Norman, who had never heard of “Wien’s Law”, until he saw me mention it. Then, looked it up on wiki, and thought he was then an expert. So he started to teach if, but misspelled it THREE times, even though the correct spelling was right in front of him!
Clowns try so hard, and ALWAYS end up squashed. It’s quite a show.
Well, fluffball seems to have run out of comedy material.
Since fluffball mentioned “angular momentum”, I can help….
A hockey puck rests flat at the very center of the merry-go-round. Its center of mass is exactly over the center of the merry-go-round. Its mass is “m”, its radius is “r”, and the angular velocity of the merry-go-round is “w”.
For part 1, what is the angular momentum of the puck?
(Part 2 will come if you get this question correct.)
Here’s the response times, just this morning on this subthread:
fluffball at 8:37, 8 minutes
fb at 8:48, 8 minutes
fb at 8:59, 5 minutes
Norman at 9:11, 3 minutes
Since the question about physics was asked, over 50 minutes, and counting!
It’s easier to be a clown than to learn physics….
Now, over an hour, and no response from fluffball, or Norman the Typist.
Do any other Spinners want to answer the question above, about the hockey puck?
SGW? Nate? Des? Snape? Dim?
“what is the angular momentum of the puck”
Unknown. Not enough info. specified. But whatever it is, rest assured the angular momentum of the puck is conserved unlike in JD’s earlier statements that reveal JD has not passed a first course in physics – the race horse does not run down the backstretch ass first as JD maintains in JD’s dream world by “NOT rotating on its own axis” during the race.
The puck can be modeled by a solid cylinder. Consequently, the angular momentum would be = (mwr^2)/2.
Very basic.
Fluffball has no background in physics, but has years of experience faking it.
No physics, all fluff.
Bzzzt. That’s incorrect JD. Try again.
I wondered if I would get a response….
What fluff did you come up with, fluff?
“what is the angular momentum of the puck”
Unknown. Not enough info. specified.
Perhaps the reprobate should look into what additional info. is needed to adequately specify the problem.
Just more fluff.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Congrats! You know how to spell Wien’s Law. Great. It would be even better if you knew what it was and how to apply it. You fail completely in that department.
You are funny though. Keep up the humor. We all need some laughs from time to time.
If you ever want to spend some time and learn physics I think it would be fine to discuss ideas with you. With your inability to read though, it might take you considerable time to get to my level of knowledge.
JD it is funny you responded to being referred to as a reprobate. It is also funny that JD underspecified another problem to another commenter. Typical, nothing new.
The answer really is unknown until the reprobate adequately specifies the problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-325994
Norman-the-Typist returns. He couldn’t solve the basic physics problem, but he’s full of false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
He and fluff make a great comedy team–“Fluff and Bluff”!
And, his really funny line, “If you ever want to spend some time and learn physics I think it would be fine to discuss ideas with you.” He had another chance today, right here….
“He had another chance today, right here..”
No, being a reprobate JD didn’t adequately specify the hockey puck problem intentionally so JD could hoodwink another commenter. Works once, shouldn’t work twice. Specify the problem adequately reprobate, show us JD has the chops.
Fluff and Bluff sure comment more often now that I gave them the answer to the simple problem.
Fixing JD…now that I gave them the incorrect answer to the simple problem.
Try again JD, look a little harder for terms JD missed; passing a first course in physics would help JD flounder around a whole lot less. So far, many hours have passed & JD hasn’t yet shown JD has the chops to do so. I’m sure JD doesn’t.
Fluffball is still fluffing, but Norman, the bluffing typist, must have a broken keyboard.
That’s all JD has – name calling. JD shows not accomplished enough in physics to understand JD’s own example problems which were probably just copied from internet experts. Typical for an admitted reprobate that needs to learn some physics.
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch JD?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Fluffball is now concerned about “name-calling”.
That’s a hoot!
But it is clear he has no physics background. He couldn’t solve the problem, or understand the solution.
And where’s the Typist? He usually can’t wait to enter his long, rambling, nonsensical comments.
“He couldn’t solve the problem, or understand the solution.”
Because JD didn’t pose an understandable problem just like his other example to hoodwink a commenter & JD’s solution is incorrect bzzzt! I repeat a well posed understandable problem that the reprobate JD can not solve or solves incorrectly:
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch JD?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Fluffball quoted me directly. That’s the only way he can ever get anything right.
The Postma Challenge:
Team Dork needs to go back to Postma’s site and declare the moon does not rotate on it’s own axis.
Helpful picture
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/parax.html
“It’s not like I’m saying rotation isn’t occurring, it’s just “what is the axis of rotation?”, that is important.”
Well that’s new then, not what your TEAM has been saying, which is that the guy is ONLY ORBITING.
Progress.
Now take it one step further.
If the guy is standing on the center of the Merry-Go_round, which is spinning.
Suppose the guy has 100 units of angular momentum, due to his rotation rate, mass, radius.
Now he moves one foot off-center. Does he have more than 100 units of angular momentum? 100? Or < 100? Assume the Merry-go round rotation rate is unchanged.
No takers on this one? Ought to be easy for JD who is supposed to understand the parallel-axis theorem.
Hint: The angular momentum you get when the guy is off-center is equal to the angular momentum of the guy when he is ROTATING on-center (100),
PLUS
the angular momentum of a point-mass equal to his mass at his center of mass and ORBITING.
So according to angular momentum, his motion when off-center, is equivalent to a COMBO of rotation plus orbiting.
Hmm, interesting.
Nate, you avoided this:
A hockey puck rests flat at the very center of the merry-go-round. Its center of mass is exactly over the center of the merry-go-round. Its mass is “m”, its radius is “r”, and the angular velocity of the merry-go-round is “w”.
For part 1, what is the angular momentum of the puck?
(Part 2 will come if you get this question correct.)
You already gave the answer, JD, remember? And it was correct, BTW.
Now is my answer to my own question correct?
Yes it was correct, Nate. You may need to inform your fellow super-clown Ball4. He believes he can transform reality to fit his beliefs.
Ha-ha.
As to your question, all things being equal, the farther out the mass from the center, the greater the angular momentum.
Ok. Then you agree that ‘according to angular momentum, his motion when off-center, is equivalent to a COMBO of rotation plus orbiting’
Interesting.
When you follow the science you are lead to the truth, amigo.
You may now want to revisit your previous statement that
“The ONLY angular momentum the Moon has is rmv, where r = Earth/Moon distance, m = lunar mass, and v = instantaneous tangential speed.
As Gordon pointed out, its angular momentum about its own center of mass is ZERO.”
Super-clown Nate imagines: “Then you agree that ‘according to angular momentum, his motion when off-center, is equivalent to a COMBO of rotation plus orbiting'”
No super-clown, I never agreed to that.
The fact that you must continually try to misrepresent me, demonstrates both your lack of character, and your failed understanding of physics.
For a point mass, the angular momentum is “mrv”. So just moving the mass farther away from the center just increases “r”. That means angular momentum increases.
Basic physics, learn some….
“Yes it was correct, Nate. You may need to inform your fellow super-clown Ball4.”
The reprobate’s solution is incorrect, Nate, as JD has not specified the problem well enough. JD just copied some expert on the ‘net so does not understand the correct angular momentum of the puck which as posed is unknown. JD can not even answer to which way a race horse runs down the backstretch thus understanding the correct angular momentum of the puck is way beyond JD.
Basic physics, learn some…
“For a point mass, the angular momentum is “mrv”. So just moving the mass farther away from the center just increases “r”. That means angular momentum increases.”
Last I checked, the Moon is not a point mass.
Basic fact, learn some.
So your statement that “The ONLY angular momentum the Moon has is rmv, where r = Earth/Moon distance, m = lunar mass, and v = instantaneous tangential speed.”
is FALSE.
And you agreed to this:
N:’The angular momentum you get when the guy is off-center is equal to the angular momentum of the guy when he is ROTATING on-center (100),
PLUS
the angular momentum of a point-mass equal to his mass at his center of mass and ORBITING.’
JD: ‘Yes it was correct, Nate.’
So no misrepresentation by me, sorry. Just your quotes, which contradict each other
Nate, you are misrepresenting me, again. You are mixing up my quotes, possibly on purpose.
I never said the Moon was a “point mass”. I used “point mass” to explain that moving from the center increased angular momentum. (And, in reality, because of Moon’s huge “r” and low eccentricity, “point mass” is not a terribly inaccurate application anyway.)
All you clowns have are tricks, tricks, and more tricks.
If you’re sincerely confused about anything I’ve said, link to my exact comment and I’ll explain it to you.
Ok, JD. Whatever you say.
Go back to your puck on center of merry-go-round. Its L= 1/2 Mr^2 w.
Now suppose it is off-center at radius d. What is its angular momentum?
Now Nate asks: “What is its angular momentum?”
Unknown. The reprobate did not properly pose the problem.
This is interesting.
Nate correctly agrees with me, about the angular momentum for the puck resting at the center of the rotating merry-go-round. But, poor fluffball still can’t understand!
It must be so frustrating for fluffball, always being last.
And your answer is?
Need help?
Doesn’t matter if 100 commenters agree with JD, science is not a voting machine. JD’s answer is unknown as the reprobate did not properly pose the hockey puck problem.
Ive already given hints, JD. Use the parallel axis theorem.
Chill out, Nate. I don’t live on this blog like super-clowns do!
To make the math simple, assume the puck is moved one radius off center. Then J = mwr^2.
For d =r, L = Mwr^2 ? Nope.
How’d you get that? Did you guess?
Where is d in your answer?
With parallel axis thm, we get L = 1/2mwr^2 +mwd^2. The rotation part plus point mass part.
For d = r L =1/2 mwr^2 + mwr^2 = 3/2 mwr^2.
Nate, there are so many things wrong with that.
First, there is no rotation of the puck. It is resting on the merry-go-round platform. Only the platform is moving. So, you don’t even need the parallel-axis theorem.
I don’t know how you could have got so many things wrong.
Correct answer is J = mwr^2.
I explained to you how I got my answer.
How did you get your answer, JD?
Even if it was correct, you need to be able to show your work, or you get no credit.
Nate, I typically use “J” for angular momentum. But, “L” is common also. I will try to switch to “L”, to avoid confusion.
For the puck riding on the platform, at a distance of “r” from the center, L = mwr^2, almost by definition. (Center of puck to center of platform = “r”.)
Your pseudoscience is maybe confusing you. The parallel-axis theorem is not needed here.
“almost by definition”
And yet, not at all. Not showing work, JD. No work no credit.
But I see you have selected one particular d value = r, while I asked you for an answer that works for any d.
“at a distance of “r” from the center, L = mwr^2, almost by definition”
Suppose d = r/5, what do we get? L = mw(r/5)^2 ? mwr^2/5? or what?
Nate, where is the evidence you are trying to understand? You keep asking questions, and then trying to avoid the answers. You seem to be more into tricks than learning.
Until you can admit that a racehorse is NOT also rotating on its own axis as it runs an oval racetrack, then you have no business trying to understand physics.
Ok, no answers, in a pickle, time to try a distraction. Next we’ll need an excuse to beat a hasty retreat.
Look JD, your answer is not correct, nor can you show how you got it. Oh well.
Your guess at an answer, L = mwr^2, for d = r, is correct for a point mass.
But your hockey puck is not a point mass, is it? Nor is it far from the axis.
In this situation, when you dont have a point mass, and it is rotating around an axis that is not its cm, that is when you need the parallel-axis-theorem.
That’s exactly the point of it.
And with it you can see that your puck has angular momentum that is a sum of a puck-rotating-around-its-cm and an orbiting point mass.
Nate believes the puck has two motions: “And with it you can see that your puck has angular momentum that is a sum of a puck-rotating-around-its-cm and an orbiting point mass.”
He refuses all help.
Just as predicted, the excuse (its my fault) and the hasty retreat to his alternate reality.
As Maxwell Smart used to say, JD, you missed it (learning something) by that much.
Sorry Nate, but you’re wrong, again.
I’m learning plenty. I never realized people would willingly oppose reality.
It’s truly amazing what a false religion will do to people’s heads.
“Your guess at an answer, L = mwr^2, for d = r, is correct for a point mass.”
JD is not even correct about that Nate. JD has read something on the internet and copied it here without knowing what JD is doing just like JD does not know about 2LOT and atm. thermo.
JD is a reprobate by JD’s own definition & JD avoids all reality accusing others incorrectly. JD is sure that a horse runs down the backstretch tail first because a “racehorse is NOT also rotating on its own axis as it runs an oval racetrack”. This is wrong by simple inspection.
JD writes he has physics books but JD doesn’t ever use them to back any arguments JD makes because JD’s physics are wrong where the books are right.
JD has entertainment value, no physics value, & JD will NOT ever change so just play with JD don’t expect anything serious from a reprobate with that handle.
JD,
‘false religion’ oh puleez..
You had plenty of opportunity to make your case, offer proof that your ‘science’ was correct, that you know what you are talking about.
But you offer none. Nada. Zilch. Diddly squat.
So you make up more stuff. Get caught with your pants down. Distract. Depart.
We’ve all got your number. The jig is up.
Go find some new marks.
Nate, all of your imaginative babbling fails because you believe that racehorse is rotating on its own axis.
Consequently, you fail, again.
Nothing new.
DREMT,
Now he is standing at the center spinning with the platform. Suppose he wants to keep his hands always pointing North, ie cancel out his rotation. He can do this by rotating himself CW at the same rate as the platform is rotating CCW, YES?
Then we would simply have a guy, with arms always pointed North, not rotating.
YES?
Now repeat when off-center. He repeats his CW spin, what will we have? We will have a guy who is not rotating (arms always North), but his cm is now ORBITING the center of the platform?
Yes?
“He can do this by rotating himself CW at the same rate as the platform is rotating CCW”
“Then we would simply have a guy, with arms always pointed North, not rotating.”
Super-clown Nate has the guy both rotating and not rotating!
Clowns are so funny.
No, simply repeating what you guys have said to describe an object orbiting on a platform while always pointing North.
“The object (square) is ‘orbiting’ CCW whilst ‘rotating on its axis’ CW.
Obviously you were unable to understand, yet believed you had.
JD, you fail to read.
The statement of mine you criticized was clearly referring to the sentence just above it, describing the guy standing at the center.
The platform is rotating CCW, while he is rotating CW, which cancels the CCW rotation. As a result he is not rotating nor orbiting. He is just pointing North. Yes?
Now if he is off-center, his c.m. ORBITS CCW.
The key point is that if he now spins CW, what is the result? The result is that his c.m. continues to orbit CCW. Not cancelled.
What motion was cancelled by his CW rotation? Clearly his CCW rotation was cancelled. As a result he points North, and does not rotate.
Just as it was when he was standing at the center. Why should it be any different?
Learn some physics.
JD,
Where can we go to learn some physics?
Maybe you could post the cracker-jack box you learned yours from?
You might try to learn from sources like this (rather than pretend you didn’t see it):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326828
Ha, JD got that example from an expert on the internet, doesn’t properly pose the problem as the expert probably did, and, since JD is the ultimate reprobate, doesn’t have the physics background to understand JD’s own answer is wrong. All in all quite humorous as JD simply runs away.
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch JD?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Fluffball failed to quote me, so everything is WRONG, as usual.
The correct answer to his silly question is:
3) Fluffball is incompetent and dishonest.
ball4….”Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch JD?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns”
Just as in your inability to understand that heat, aka thermal energy, is real, you are unable to understand that the horse is not rotating about it’s centre of gravity. It is rotating about the centre of the track with a rectilinear and curvilinear translation.
All points on the horse in the curves are moving in the same direction and parallel to the instantaneous tangent to an instantaneous point on the track. Same thing along the straightaways.
You are confusing a rotation about a local axis with a rotation about an external axis. The pertinent angular velocities are different. For local rotation, the angular velocity is the sweep of a radial line through the body from its centre of 360 degrees or a portion thereof. On a track, the angular velocity is the sweep of a radial line from a centre or focal point of the track through an angle around the track.
While the horse is orbiting the track, there is no radial line through its body sweeping around an axis through the horse. To verify that, attach a rope to the horse’s saddle and have the horse run in circles. It still changes direction as it orbits but it cannot turn in circles about its own axis due to the rope. Same with wooden horses on a carousel.
For a rotation about a central axis in the horse to occur, all points in the horse would have to turn in circles about that axis at the same time the horse was moving around the track.
That’s what the Earth does in its orbit of the Sun. However, the Moon does not do that in its orbit of the Earth. The Moon is not turning on it’s own axis, nor is the horse.
The turning you are claiming is purely a property of translation. If that horse was a wooden horse on a carousel, fixed in place so it could not rotate about it’s local axis, it would turn in the same way about the carousel axis in the same way a horse moves around a track a track.
Gordon – jabbering is not an answer & JD quit running away, just answer the simple question:
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch JD?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Even after Gordon’s clear explanation of why fluffball’s latest trick is a “physics fail”, fluffball continues with the trick. Fluffball has nothing else.
Fluffball uses the same trick over and over, hoping for different results.
Like that will work….
If Gordon’s explanation was so clear, simply answer the question JD.
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
The Postma Dare:
Gordon and Team Dork go to Postma’s site and declare:
1. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
2. A horse running a circular track does not rotate on its own axis.
3. … and so on.
Unable to learn, Fluffball uses the same trick over and over, hoping for different results.
Like that will work….
SGW, who is this “Postma” I’ve seen you clowns mention? And why are you afraid of him?
Still no answer JD? Demonstrates Gordon’s explnation was not so clear after all.
No fluffball, what it demonstrates is your inability to face reality.
Reality is watching a horse race JD, and you can’t even answer a simple question about that reality. Even after your claim to have been given a clear explanation by Gordon.
Fluffball, have ever been to a horse race? The horses do NOT rotate on their axes as they run the track.
That is some of the REALITY you refuse.
But, as I’ve mentioned, help is available….
From Postma’s blog:
“gera*, if you use the same name on Dr. Spencer’s blog, I read over there and rarely post but agree with you.”[George – 2018/04/30 at 9:24 AM]
“gera* says:
2018/05/02 at 6:02 AM
George, yes that’s me you see over on Spencer’s blog. I have fun debunking the nonsense from the clowns like “jelly appelly”. I had hopes I could help Spencer, but he’s censored me again.”
Always the clown.
SGW, so there are three of them, huh? George, Postma, and gera*?
Best to hide under your bed, until you can see your therapist.
“The horses do NOT rotate on their axes as they run the track.”
Ok, so I now find JD has answered the question which way does a horse run down the backstretch and goes with
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Talk about not heeding reality. 1) was the correct answer JD by simple inspection of horse races so you got that wrong in addition to hockey puck angular momentum.
Keep deceiving yourself, fluffball.
No, JD you are simply incorrect. Open a physics book and learn some physics THEN write here what you have learned with a cite to your text book. Basic physics being discussed here is not that hard, I’m sure entertaining reprobate JD can make progress learning from the experts.
Ball4 says, “JD you are simply…correct”, so Ball4 now confirms he is in agreement with JD in Ball4’s own words, Ball4 has learned some physics from Ball4’s experts and Ball4 has actually made an argument rather than Ball4 just endlessly making contrary statements and Ball4 misrepresenting JD’s own words, in Ball4’s own words as not ever confirmed by any real test.
Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to DREMT for uselessly writing what didn’t need to be written. I’m particularly glad that blog readers were here today to read DREMT’s comment. Not only is it authentic sophist gibberish, it expressed an ineptitude little seen in this day and age.
Ball4 says, “now who can argue with that”, so Ball4 agrees in Ball4’s own words that Ball4 contributes very little but Ball4’s contrary statements and Ball4’s continuous putting others words into Ball4’s own words, as confirmed by tests conducted by Ball4 in Ball4’s own imagination, and by Clausius’s own words but filtered through Ball4’s own manipulations, as confirmed by test.
ball4…”Gordon jabbering is not an answer & JD quit running away, just answer the simple question:”
Your reply confirms my view that you are behaving like a troll, posing disruptive nonsense to interfere with a debate. You did the same with heat, now you are at it with kinematics.
Anyone who claims heat does not exist is not merely a troll but an idiot too. Anyone who claims that a horse running around a track is rotating on its centre of gravity is even more of an idiot.
ball4…”2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns”
What a jabbering idiot. Do you really think the horse rotates 180 degrees on its COG in the curve so it can point in the right direction down the straightaway?
You should refrain from engaging in debates on physics when you are plainly confused. The horse runs the curves in the same manner it runs the straightaways, straight ahead.
The horse runs straight down the straightaway and when it reaches the curve it still runs straight, in a series of straight tangent lines.
Where does it rotate on its COG???
ball4…”Basic physics being discussed here is not that hard”
For you, it’s obviously extremely difficult. You take a simple phenomenon like heat and claim it does not exist, now you are taking a simple straight line motion and claiming a horse running it is turning in circles as it runs.
“The horse runs straight down the straightaway and when it reaches the curve it still runs straight”
Definition of straight:
Straight: extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
If a horse is running straight, and comes to a bend and still runs straight, it will run off the track!!! Hello?! (One sandwich short of a picnic)
Gordon goes to new heights in redefining the English language. He is clueless regarding the definition of translation, continually making up his own bizarre definitions. How can he even show up here and post such nonsense? How embarrassing.
SGW, you continue to be confused by “translational motion”. Translational motion does not always have to be in a “straight line”. The Moon’s orbit is not a “straight line”, nor is the complete lap of a horse on a racetrack.
Nor is your own example of translation:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
The Moons orbit is not a “straight line” because the moon is going around turns and as it keeps the same face forward this means the moon is turning at the same time, once per orbit.
Poor JD can’t remember his own house address. I’ve defined curvilinear translation over and over, and have described the following as curvilinear translation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326923
Here’s another definition of curvilinear translation:
Curvilinear Translation: All points on the body move on congruent curves [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
So with a race car, or train on a circular track, a point on the outside edge of the object is on a different circular path than a point on the inside edge of the object. Those two circular paths are not congruent, therefor the motion is not translational. Prepare to hear a whooshing sound as this goes right over the head of Team Dork.
Still waiting for Team Dork to give a kinematic definition of translation (not a stupid wrong example)
Gordon continues with an incorrect statement going against Clausius’ claims: “You take a simple phenomenon like heat and claim it does not exist”
That is what Clausius claimed based on experiments conducted in the mid1800s.
“Straight: extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.”
OK, TGT. Question One:
A horse runs along a straight track, for 100 meters. Is the horse’s motion rectilinear translation, yes or no?
So “Ger” “anne” (you know who) get banned from this site in April. He confirms this on Post*a’s blog in May while in a discussion concerning a physicist named Harry Dale Huff*an (I think spelling huffys or Posties name will cause the post to not go through). Then in June the persona of JDHuff*an magically appears. Like we can’t connect the dots?
If someone wants to remain anonymous, you don’t choose a name of someone you were blabbing about on a public blog. Wow! Good one, Einstein.
*=m
Sorry TGT, that wasn’t a “yes” or a “no”. Try again.
Team Dork needs to provide kinematic definitions of rectilinear and curvilinear translation, and then answer his own questions based on whether the motion in question meets all the criteria in the definition, explaining why. Team Dork needs to also realize that any motion in question is always described with respect to the inertial reference frame, something he continually fails to get, as seen with the stupid circle on a ship floor fiasco.
Ah, yes, the circle on the ship floor, “fiasco”. Snape pretending that I didn’t understand that the book or the circle could be considered to be moving, or not moving, with respect to different reference frames. That aside, back to the question…
I will take one of your obsessively stated and restated definitions, for translation:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position“
and I will answer the question myself, that along a straight track (definition: extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend) of 100 meters, the motion of the horse is indeed translational. “Yes”, in other words. See how easy that was?
OK, now for Question Two:
The horse runs along the track, which continues in one direction only all the way around the Earth, until the horse is back where he started from. At what point did the motion of the horse cease being translational, and become a translation plus a rotation, as you no doubt see it?
“which continues in one direction only all the way around the Earth, ”
This question has a false premise. Can’t be answered. Try again.
Direction = north, east, west, south, etc.
So…not a false premise. Try again.
Hint: “same direction” in the inertial reference frame, means always in the direction of the same star
Hint: TGT is not basing his definition of the inertial reference frame to a star, when he is discussing for example the motion of a Ferris wheel, on Earth!
The way you guys chop and change things to suit, is ridiculous!
DREMT, look up what an inertial reference frame is.
The stars are universally understood and used as an inertial reference frame.
We’ve been over this already. The Earths equator is not a straight line in any inertial reference frame. Your use of it, is just creating unnecessary confusion.
Yes, Nate, but when TGT and others are discussing, for example, the motion of a Ferris wheel, when referring to “the inertial reference frame” they are in fact referring to “the ground”, or with other examples, sometimes “compass directions”. Same concept. They are not referring to “the fixed stars”.
Now, the horse runs “east”, in that direction only…answer the question please.
“the horse runs east, in that direction onlyanswer the question please.”
OK, if the horse starts in Africa, when he gets to India,
“every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”
is NOT satisfied. So NOT translational motion.
What is your point? You keep repeating the same things hoping for a new understanding.
Not happening.
OK, so “Africa to India” is your arbitrary distance along the track whereby you stop thinking of it as translational motion, and start thinking of it as a translation plus rotation. Interesting.
“your arbitrary distance”
of no significance. Could have chosen two cities in Africa.
DREMT doesn’t specify how the horse running the equator manages to run on the ocean water but that’s typical.
Yes, the horse faces east all the way around rotating once its own axis for each lap of the equator and if you believe DREMT that the horse “does NOT rotate on its own axis” then in China the horse is running tail first. Ok, that’s possible as a trick pony but again, DREMT doesnt specify enough just as JD didnt properly pose the hockey puck problem. Typical for a reprobate.
Yes, Nate, you could have chosen 100 meters along the road as the point at which you consider the translational motion to be translation plus rotation. But you wouldn’t have quite gone that far because then you would be basically saying that on Earth, there is no such thing as translation.
Then all you have to do is follow the same train of thought, at different altitudes…
…deprogramming is so easy.
“Then all you have to do is follow the same train of thought, at different altitudes…”
What you are discussing is the well known fact that zooming in on a small piece of a large circle appears flat, but is of course not really flat.
IOW a distraction from what we are really talking about.
OK Nate.
“when TGT and others are discussing, for example, the motion of a Ferris wheel, when referring to the inertial reference frame they are in fact referring to the ground”
No, Dufus, the inertial reference frame for a ferris wheel is a fixed plane perpendicular to the ground that intersects the ferris wheel structure.
OK, super-important distinction there, thanks TGT.
‘he wants to keep his hands always pointing North, ie cancel out his rotation. He can do this by rotating himself CW at the same rate as the platform is rotating CCW’
“Super-clown Nate has the guy both rotating and not rotating!”
Then, brainiac, how would you describe that guy’s motion?
He’s both “orbiting” and “rotating on his own axis”.
No he starts out ‘he is standing at the center spinning with the platform’
so he can’t be orbiting. Try again.
Nate, your inability to understand is fascinating.
1) The platform is rotating CCW.
2) If the man is off center, he must rotate CW to always face “north”. So, he is both “orbiting” and “rotating on his own axis”, as I stated.
If he was not making the extra CW motion, one of his sides would always be facing the center of the platform, just like with the Moon.
But he is only rotating on his own axis relative to the platform, not to the rest of the universe.
So he is not rotating on his own axis.
Poor boob.
Such a bob.
How’s that minor in physics going?
Going great, bob. I still have all my old physics books, and guess what, everything in them is still valid.
That’s the advantage of learning the laws of physics–they never change.
You should give it a try….
“I still have all my old physics books”
Then JD should use them to understand correct angular momentum of hockey pucks. And to answer a simple question 1 or 2 which JD has been unable to do so far:
Which way does a race horse run down the closed course backstretch?
1) Head first having rotated on its own axis in the turns
2) Tail first NOT having rotated on its own axis in the turns
Libraries have many physics books but librarians are not necessarily going to get the correct answer to the angular momentum of a hockey puck.
Fluffball, how many times have you tricked that same trick?
Maybe another couple 100, and you will learn it’s not working….
Oh it is quite obvious it’s not working as reprobate JD continues refusing to learn some physics.
Well then JD,
Why don’t you crack them open and quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics from them then?
It is you that might learn something.
bob, none of you were able to answer the simple physics question. I had to give the answer.
No surprise.
JD, none were able to answer your simple physics question becuse it is ill posed, there is no answer. Learn some physics. Open a text book to find out why that is the case.
And I did forget one that still can’t understand the simple problem, even with the correct answer!
But, at least he patrols this blog constantly, like an obsession….
JD,
I answered your question on the plate alone in space, and used the case where the plate was spinning, because you reprobates haven’t been able to identify something in space that wasn’t spinning.
I answered it correctly.
Well, you reprobates think the moon isn’t spinning, but well you are wrong.
You haven’t cited the second law because you know damn well it doesn’t say what you say it says. It doesn’t cause the blue plate to reflect the radiation from the green plate.
bob, 5 sentences, 5 wrong!
100% WRONG!
At least you’re consistent.
“…even with the correct answer!”
Your hockey puck answer is incorrect JD, and you’ve already been told that, open a physics book and find out why, rise above reprobate status. Or don’t, losing the entertainment value of JD commenting incorrectly is undesirable.
Nany nany boo boo
I’m right and you’re wrong.
Name one thing that isn’t spinning.
Just one.
bob, all of your comments are “spinning”, I agree.
JD shows JD cannot name one thing that isn’t spinning. Which is in part why JD gets the wrong answer for the hockey puck angular momentum problem. JD’s physics failures are fun to watch, more please.
Ball4 says he “cannot name one thing that isn’t spinning”, so Ball4 exists in a terrifying world where everything is spinning constantly around Ball4, Ball4 tries to get a plate for dinner but Ball4’s plate is spinning around on its own axis uncontrollably, as Ball4 puts some peas on the plate they are also rotating on their own axes so hard they fly off Ball4’s rotating plate at random, Ball4 tries to open his mouth to catch the peas but Ball4’s head is rotating about its own axis on top of his neck. Ball4 rotates on his axis to roll forward and backwards to try to help but the floor in Ball4’s house is rotating on its own axis vertically at the same time, Ball4 rolls dejectedly towards his rotating bed and calls it a day, but cant sleep due to the relentless nausea of his hellish rotating existence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronous-rotation
spin spin spin spin
spam spam spam spam
spam and eggs eggs and spam
spin an egg spam and eggs
bobd…”Why dont you crack them open and quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics from them then?”
From the source, Clausius, the scientist who wrote the 2nd law:
Heat can NEVER, by it own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
Want it in math? Again from Clausius, who defined entropy:
entropy = S = integral dQ/T
In words, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat, Q, at the temperature, T, at which they change.
Clausius specified that S must be > than or = to 0. Since -ve entropy would be a heat transfer from cold to hot, it is not allowed.
Clear enough?
Note: there are no references whatsoever to the mythical net sum of energies or to a net heat transfer, Norman’s favourite bit of pseudo-science.
bobd…”You havent cited the second law because you know damn well it doesnt say what you say it says. It doesnt cause the blue plate to reflect the radiation from the green plate”.
Where else would it go when it is not absorbed?
According to quantum theory, if the EM is not absorbed, it can be reflected. They mention other means of diverting the EM but the end result is that it is not absorbed.
Who really cares, the 2nd law assures us that no EM from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer body.
It’s just the way of it, Bob. Energy does not run up potential energy hills and heat in a colder body will not run up hill to a warmer body.
“Clear enough?”
No, since entropy is created during an energy transfer from both hot to cold objects as well as cold to hot objects, these processes are allowed by 2LOT and Maxwell-Boltzmann proved that after Clausius wrote his book. Heat does not exist except as a measure of an object’s total thermodynamic internal energy.
Gordon continues to be wrong in his understanding of 2LOT and heat.
Gordon,
I don’t recall the name, and I am not at home, to cite it, but we had a little red book back in the day…
But you got the important little bit and even quoted it!
But you don’t seem to understand it.
“by its own means”
The green plate gets some help from the heat source on the far left.
It doesn’t do it by itself.
And solids have plenty of closely spaced energy levels, so they can absorb lots of low energy photons.
Oh never mind, you don’t believe in photons.
Team Dunce,
If you clowns are so confident with this nonsense, by all means go back to Joseph Postma’s site and declare the moon does not rotate on its own axis. See what he says. He’s got a masters in astrophysics and he works in the industry.
OK? Chicken??
https://media.giphy.com/media/pxCtKIDdBL008/giphy.gif
Whatever Postma’s position in the moon rotation debate, I am confident that he would at least be able to agree that all parts of a rigid rotating platform revolve about an axis in the center of the platform, and no sub-section of the rigid platform can possibly be rotating about any other axis. Which was the point I was making with the merry-go-round/chalk circle back in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-326739
Yet somehow this has triggered an entire weekend of denial despite it being a completely uncontroversial and obvious fact.
It seems like a lot of people really do need that professional help.
DREMT,
re: the atoms in the chalk circle. Nobody’s denying this, just its significance.
Even if the horse were rotating about its own axis, the atoms in the chalk circle would be rotating about the horse’s axis, not their own axis.
If you had not ignored all the discussion that followed, you might have learned something.
For example, JD is trying to learn that when a mass (like your horse on the platform) is rotating around an axis NOT thru its cm, it still has the angular momentum it would have if it were rotating around its cm, PLUS the angular momentum of an equivalent point mass orbiting at the distance from the axis of the cm.
Thus according to a measurable quantity, angular momentum, your horse’s motion is a combination of rotating about its own axis and orbiting.
Nate, the chalk circle is not rotating about an axis in its center, from any reference frame, just as the wooden horse fixed to the platform is not rotating about an axis in its center, from any reference frame.
ALL parts of the rigid rotating platform revolve about an axis in the center of the platform.
P.S: “Nobody’s denying this”
Ha ha, well not now they have actually thought about it, maybe! The initial responses were what they were (and won’t be forgotten). And even now you ARE trying to find a way to deny it.
Nate does not understand the relevant physics. He must have somehow found out about the parallel-axis theorem, and believed it fit his belief system.
So, he believes: “Thus according to a measurable quantity, angular momentum, your horse’s motion is a combination of rotating about its own axis and orbiting.”
Nate believes the theorem means the object is BOTH orbiting AND rotating on its own axis.
He can’t understand how the simple theorem applies.
We should try not to laugh….
“understand the relevant physics.”
JD, I gave you plenty of opportunity above to show that you have any skill or understanding in physics, and you showed none.
Nothing to offer. Zilch.
No one takes your opinions on that subject seriously.
DREMT, and yet your example provides nothing new.
You guys still fail to understand translation, rotation, angular momentum.
dremt…”Yet somehow this has triggered an entire weekend of denial despite it being a completely uncontroversial and obvious fact”.
What it’s really doing is exposing the inability of climate alarmists to think clearly. The notion of AGW is based on confused thinking.
Arrhenius was a good scientist and what he proposed re CO2 was that it ‘could’ warm the planet but he thought that would be beneficial.
Circa 1910, an outstanding scientist and expert on CO2, R. W. Wood, claimed that CO2 could not act in such a manner as to raise the temperature of the surface or the atmosphere. He claimed a more likely scenario was oxygen and nitrogen absorbing heat directly from the surface, where it rose higher into the atmosphere. Due to the inability of N2 and O2 to release heat quickly, the atmosphere warmed.
When people who can think clearly offer theories, they make sense.
Modern alarmists have hijacked the Arrhenius theory and embellished it with pseudo-science, without adding anything to the thoughts of Arrhenius, and offer the pseudo-science as fact.
Then a lot of those logically-challenged, faith-based types got to together under the umbrella of the IPCC and AGREED it was correct.
Not one of them has proved it using the scientific method.
nate…”Thus according to a measurable quantity, angular momentum, your horses motion is a combination of rotating about its own axis and orbiting.”
Not so. The angular momentum of the horse running around the track is not the same angular momentum of a horse turning around its own COG.
It’s easier to think in terms of angular velocity since it can be visualized. When you talk of the angular velocity of the horse on the track, you must draw a radial line from a focal point of the track to the horse and measure how quickly that line rotates in degrees/radians per second.
To make that easier, change the track from an oval to a circle, then we don’t have to mess with the focal point of ellipses and their relationship to the straight portions of the track.
The angular velocity of a horse turning about it’s centre of mass, would require a separate system of axes centred on the horse’s CG. If the y-axis pointed head to tail, the angular velocity would be the rate at which that line turned WITH RESPECT TO THE HORSE….NOT THE TRACK.
Obviously, that angular velocity is zero radians/second. If it was not, the horse’s head-tail would be rotating about the CG as the horse ran straight ahead.
You are confusing rotation related to rectilinear/curvilinear translation to rotation about an axis. If you made the circles several thousand miles in circumference, it might be easier to visualize. The larger you make it the more apparent straightness there is and the horse would essentially be running one long straight section.
Poor Team Dork. Always making up their own definitions. The moon does not translate, neither does the earth. An object translating CANNOT rotate. It has to keep its orientation constant, with a line through the object having to maintain the same direction throughout its movement. They STILL don’t get this.
Reading a physics textbook cannot help them. They do not have the intelligence to understand simple concepts.
Here is a picture of a translating object. Is it rotating?
https://tinyurl.com/yd2tbndw
If you tell Gordon to go straight down the road, he turns a drives into the ditch.
“DREMT, and yet your example provides nothing new.“
That’s interesting, Nayt. So for how many of the other examples do you also agree that the subject is “rotating about an axis NOT thru its cm”, or more simply “not rotating on its own axis”?
SGW is really confused: “The moon does not translate, neither does the earth. An object translating CANNOT rotate.”
“Translational motion” and “rotating on its own axis” are two different motions. The Earth does BOTH, but the Moon only does translatinal.
JD/DREMT/Gordon,
This is a science blog. On this blog, facts matter. Your hostility to science and facts will win no converts here.
Until you guys decide to use standard science definitions of things, translation, rotation, heat, black bodies, you will continue to be considered trolls and no more.
If you guys continue to declare that basic laws of physic, 1LOT, radiative heat transfer law, parallel axis theorem, are optional, expendable, inapplicable, then your posts will not be taken seriously.
That’s one of your funniest comments ever, anonymous super-clown Nate.
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.” [[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Poor Team Dimwit’s examples do NOT conform to the REAL definition of translation. He never gives a kinematic definition of translation.
So he makes ignorant declarative statements with no support whatsoever. So sad. So pathetic. So delusional.
Poor dufus thinks the following object is rotating:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
The only time he’s been in a physics class is when he mops the floors.
SGW, you are still confused about “translational motion”. Try the simple coffee cup experiment.
Merely tape two felt tip markers to opposite sides of the cup. The markers are taped vertically, so they can mark the surface as the cup moves.
In Figure A, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the center. This is, of course, PURE orbital motion. The circles do not cross.
In Figure B, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the same direction, such as north. This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles. This is two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
The circles do not cross because the cup is rotating on its own axis by simple inspection. The cup kept facing forward by being rotated on its own axis into the direction of movement just like a race horse on a closed track.
The poor dork refuses to give a kinematic definition of translation.
If you tell JD to drive down the road as it curves, JD doesn’t turn and drives straight into the ditch.
Normally intelligent drivers turn the steering wheel & safely rotate the car on its own axis to follow the curve in the road always turning to keep facing forward in the turn as does the cup in JD’s Example A keeping the lines from crossing (the wheel marks in the snow follow the sides of the road).
“This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles. This is two motions, orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
LMAO. JD gives a perfect example of curvilinear tranlational motion in Figure B. In figure B the circles that represent the path of the two points on the cup are congruent. If the paths any two different point on an object are congruent, then the motion of that object is displaying curvilinear translation:
“Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.” [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
He scores a goal for the opposition! LMAO!
And once again he makes up his own private definition of translation.
Easy quick experiment on curvilinear translation:
Hold two pens between your fingers. Keep one pen directly above the other while drawing a circle on a piece of paper. This motion represents translational motion since the orientation of the two points of the pens does not change. And as if by magic, what you have drawn are two congruent circles, which meets another criteria for an object to be in curvilinear translational motion (see definition above. And the circles cross each other, proving once again what a Bozo JD is with his phony definitions)
Absolutely amazing!
Clowns throw facts and logic away as quickly as they can.
And the audience roars with laughter as Team Dunce makes a fool of himself and does not realize it.
JD,
“This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles.”
Where are the facts you keep talking about?
When you say “This is NOT translational motion” that is just a declaration, an opinion, not a fact.
Do you know the difference?
SGW showed strict definitions of ‘Translation’, and the motion of the cup with handle always North is agreeing with that.
There is nothing in the definition about crossing circles.
Now you guys don’t like the definition, thats just an instinct, a feeling, not a fact.
If the circles are crossing, that indicates the object is “rotating on its axis”. Pure translational motion, such as orbiting, or a racehorse, would not leave a trail of interesting circles.
More unsubstantiated declarations without any supporting definitions whatsoever. Zero. Declaring something so just does not cut it in science.
“If the circles are crossing, that indicates..”
“Pure translational motion would not…”
Feelings, not facts.
Here is an x-y plotter in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY0xMYrWBDg
Notice the pen only moves from one point to another and drops down to the paper.
The pen is only designed to translate, not rotate.
We could program it to translate from point 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5, etc and end up drawing a circle.
All by translating. The pen never once rotated, since it cannot, and it is not needed.
Same thing happens in 3D printers.
SGW and Nate, how about a dead squirrel?
A dead squirrel will prove whatever you need to prove, in your addiction to pseudoscience.
Throw away all facts and logic. Throw away the markers-taped-to-a-coffee-cup experiment. Throw away the MIT problem that indicated the object on the train would not be rotating on its own axis. Throw away the simple example of a racehorse, that is obviously not rotating on its own axis.
Throw away all facts and logic. Avoid reality. A dead squirrel proves anything you need to justify your false beliefs.
Nate, as you agree, the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, it is revolving about an axis in the center of the platform. The motion would be as in JD’s Figure A. Now deal with your cognitive dissonance, in 3…2…1…
“Throw away all facts and logic. Throw away the markers-taped-to-a-coffee-cup experiment. Throw away the MIT problem that indicated the object on the train would not be rotating on its own axis. Throw away the simple example of a racehorse, that is obviously not rotating on its own axis.”
I see JD, these are examples that you showed. These apparently are more valuable than the many many examples that were shown to you, that you dissed or ignored?
DREMT,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-327266
When the pen moves from point a to b to c, it translates. Even when these points lie on a curve.
This is the real world using the standard definitions of translation and rotation.
When the pen is programmed to draw a curve or a circle, with your definitions, the pen would have to be told to translate AND rotate.
Of course that would be silly, needlessly complex, and not even possible.
…blast off!
Good answer..
Nate admits: “…these are examples that you showed. These apparently are more valuable than the many many examples that were shown to you, that you dissed or ignored?”
Of course Nate, your examples were either wrong or incoherent.
You just can’t beat reality, until now…
With your new “dead squirrel”, you never have to lose another debate. Who can argue with a dead squirrel? Plus, the dead squirrel is automatic proof of all pseudoscience. Need to redefine 2LoT to fit your beliefs? Dead squirrel does it! Need to prove that racehorse is also rotating on its own axis? No problem, dead squirrel does it.
Why didn’t you clowns think of this before?
septic….”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”.
You have just described the Moon orbiting the Earth and a horse orbiting a track.
Starting on the straight section, all points move parallel to their initial position. When the body of the horse hits the curve, the same remains true. All points are still moving parallel to their initial position as a rigid body.
The Moon is even easier if you consider a circular orbit. Starting at x = 1, y =0 on a Cartesian coordinate system, and orbiting CCW, all points on the Moon remain parallel to the tangent lines to the circle at each point.
If the Moon was rotating about it’s own axis, those lines would be rotating around the axis.
Although some of you seem to think it occurs during one orbit, it does not. It seems to turn on its axis but that is an illusion. It turns through 360 degrees only because it is forced to follow an orbital path while one face is locked to the surface. If the Moon rotated about its axis, it could not possibly show the same face to the Earth throughout the orbit.
JDHuffman says:
“Pure translational motion, such as orbiting, or a racehorse, would not leave a trail of interesting circles.”
You forgot the text book citation for this law.
Svante, there is no longer a need for you to feign interest in facts and logic. You’ve got the “dead squirrel”!
Reality is out, clowns and dead squirrels are in!
“It seems to turn on its axis but that is an illusion. It turns through 360 degrees…”
Typical Gordon confused writing.
Fluffball, grab onto the dead squirrel.
You no longer have to misrepresent others. You no longer have to misquote them. You now have the awesome power of the dead squirrel.
Cherish it.
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”.
You have just described the Moon orbiting the Earth and a horse orbiting a track.”
NO! A thousand times NO. If the horse starts out facing west on the starting line, the horse HAS TO remain facing west throughout the whole orbit (assume CCW) of the track to be considered curvilinear translation. The original position of the line is West. A line parallel to that HAS to be pointing West.
On a circular track, if the horse starts at the 12:00 noon position facing west, and then travels to the 9:00 o’clock position, the horse will be facing south. That is NOT curvilinear translation. South is NOT parallel to the original position. In the figure below, the rod remains parallel to its original position throughout the curvilinear translation:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
Neither is the moon translating.
“…blast off!”
I guess seeing the simplicity of translation in action blows your mind, DREMT.
Every argument is a ‘dead squirrel’?
I guess JD can’t cope with reality anymore, and has finally lost his mind.
Remember Nate, with your dead squirrel, there is no reality. That’s why you cherish your dead squirrel.
😂
Glad to see that you guys have run out of serious arguments.
Maybe this dead horse has been run its last race!
OK Nate. Just try not to think about the wooden horse on the carousel.
Yes, good example of the wooden horse on a carousel that continously turns to keep facing forward as it completes each lap just like the moon.
It continually revolves about an axis in the center of the platform, and not on its own axis, sure.
No worries.
OK Nate.
Incorrect DREMT by inspection the horse has to rotate on its own axis to always face forward just like the moon. Race horses do not run down the backstretch tail first, neither do wooden horses – they both rotate on own axis once per lap. This is simple physics except for simpleton commenters.
Incorrect Ball4 by inspection all parts of a rigid rotating platform revolve about an axis in the center of the platform, no sub-section of the platform can be rotating about any other axis. This is simple physics except for simpleton commenters.
OK, DREMT, yes simpleton commenters agree the carousel and race horses that do not rotate on their own axis run tail first down the backstretch. And horses running the equator that do not rotate on their own axis bounce tail first, head to dirt though China.
OK Ball4, simpleton commenters don’t understand that the wooden horse on the carousel doesn’t run tail first at any point because the wooden horse is revolving about an axis in the center of the platform, same as every other part of the rigid rotating platform.
DREMT,
BTW this 😂 ?
I mean I know you and JD are like conjoined twins, but you really think there’s humor in:
“with your dead squirrel, there is no reality. Thats why you cherish your dead squirrel.” ??
“wooden horse is revolving about an axis in the center of the platform”
Yes that’s referred to as orbiting the center of the platform. The horses that always face forward are also revolving once on their own axis per lap and the horses that run tail first down the backstretch do not revolve at all on their own axis per lap.
I see a lot of humor in everything that’s happening. For one thing, you could help Ball4 out in his confusion. But of course, you won’t. Because you don’t actually want to help anyone, despite all that you say. And I find that funny too.
“you could help Ball4”
Your idea of ‘help’ is similar to Jehova’s Witnesses’ and Scientologist’s idea of ‘help’.
It means ‘help’ people to join a weird, mind-numbing cult.
Sorry, no can do.
Thanks for another 😂
Nate and fluffball were the ones that got so tangled up with angular momentum. Clearly, neither of the two had a clue.
The simple problem had the hockey puck resting at the center of a merry-go-round platform. The problem was to find the angular momentum of the puck, given radius “r”, mass “m”, and angular velocity “w”.
None of the clowns could answer.
When I gave the correct answer, (mwr^2)/2, Nate agreed, but fluffball didn’t. Fluffball was never able to give another answer, or explain why he believed my answer was wrong.
But, then Nate suggested moving the puck off center. He tried to use the parallel-axis theorem, believing the puck was somehow rotating on its own axis!
Just another humorous example of clowns attempting a simple physics problem.
JD,
“But, then Nate suggested moving the puck off center.”
You claimed to have solved the very basic physics question, what is the angular momentum of a puck rotating about an off-center axis, but guessed a wrong answer, and refused to show how you got it.
You simply had no clue, did you? Not one. Yet you constantly claim you do understand physics.
Not sure why you want to relive the humiliation.
“He tried to use the parallel-axis theorem, believing the puck was somehow rotating on its own axis!”
We have a puck rotating about an off-center axis. How can I find its angular momentum, L = Iw.
We have to find its moment of inertia, I, somehow..
Hmmmm… wait a minute.
Wikipedia
“Suppose a body of mass m is made to rotate about an axis z passing through the body’s centre of gravity. The body has a moment of inertia Icm with respect to this axis.
The PARALELL AXIS THEOREM states that if the body is made to rotate instead about a new axis z′ which is parallel to the first axis and displaced from it by a distance d, then the moment of inertia I with respect to the new axis is related to Icm by
I = Icm + md^2 ”
Cool! The parallel axis theorem is designed for just this very situation!
So of course, JD feigning expertise that he just doesn’t have, rejects, for the 47th time, standard physics and math.
But Nate, the puck isn’t rotating instead about a new axis z′ which is parallel to the first axis and displaced from it by a distance d, the puck is still simply revolving about the the first axis, in the center of the platform. The puck isn’t rotating on its own axis as well, which is what you would need to apply the parallel axis theorem.
Nate, that’s the danger in trying to learn physics from wiki.
You can’t!
Moving the puck off center does NOT cause the puck to start “rotating on its own axis”. It is still only riding on the platform. It only has the angular momentum from the orbiting motion.’
But, your misinformed perversions of physics are entertaining!
DREMT,
“The puck is still simply revolving about the the first axis, in the center of the platform.”
That is exactly what this means:
“the body is made to rotate instead about a new axis z′ which is parallel to the first axis and displaced from it by a distance d”
The ‘first axis’ in Wiki page means center of the puck. The puck’s center is now displaced by d from the center of the platform, which is the new axis, z’.
This is EXACTLY the situation when you need the Parallel axis theorem.
You are also going to feign expertise that you do not have? What is with you guys?
Read the damn Wikipedia page!
Nate loses another one, with his usual grace.
“Moving the puck off center does NOT cause the puck to start rotating on its own axis. It is still only riding on the platform.
It IS riding on the platform, and the platform is rotating around its center. The center of rotation is now a distance d away from the pucks center. You can call that orbiting -it doesnt change the problem.
That is exactly the situation requiring the parallel axis thm!
Wiki is correct in this case. It agrees with my textbooks. Dont believe it? Find your own source!
OK, DREMT Mr ‘honest debate’.
Explain, clearly, as I have been doing, what you disagree with.
As you agree that the puck is only resting on the platform, away from the center, then it is not rotating on its own axis. It is not “rotat[ing] instead about a new axis z′.”
“It is not ‘rotating instead about a new axis z′.'”
Yes it is.
And you’ve used nearly the same language to describe the horse on the platform.
“The wooden horse is not rotating about its center of mass, but it is rotating (revolving) about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.”
But if you want to call it orbiting or revolving, thats fine to.
Yes, Nate, the off center puck resting on the platform is revolving about the center of the platform, same as the wooden horse, and same as the chalk circle. None of them are rotating about their own center of mass, their own axis.
As your own link makes clear, the puck would have to be rotating on its own axis, as well as revolving about the center of the platform.
Please do continue in your denial, for my amusement.
“As your own link makes clear, the puck would have to be rotating on its own axis, as well as revolving about the center of the platform.”
No it does not say that. Where?
Nate, at the center of the platform, the puck is “rotating on its own axis”, due to the motion of the platform. When you move the puck off center, it is then orbiting, due to the motion of the platform.
“Suppose a body of mass m is made to rotate about an axis z passing through the body’s centre of gravity. The body has a moment of inertia Icm with respect to this axis.
The PARALLEL AXIS THEOREM states that if the body is made to rotate instead about a new axis z′ which is parallel to the first axis and displaced from it by a distance d”
The puck is made to rotate about an axis z passing through the body’s center of mass when it is placed in the center of the rotating platform. When it is displaced from this axis by a distance d, it needs to then be made to rotate around the new axis z′. Resting on the platform, it is not rotating about this new axis.
When you move the puck off center of the carousel axis, it is then orbiting and rotating on its own axis as the puck keeps the same face forward resting on the carousel. This is easy to observe except by the reprobate and the team.
You are trying very hard to misunderstand, it seems, DREMT
The idea is
CASE 1:
“The puck is made to rotate about an axis z passing through the bodys center of mass ”
CASE 2:
“the body is made to rotate INSTEAD about a new axis z′”
CASE 1 and CASE 2 are separate, as you can see by the word INSTEAD.
CASE 2 agrees with your horse fixed to the platform, or our puck resting on the platform.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/parax.html
Picture. You can see the object is rotating around an axis shifted away from its cm.
This is same as the puck only slightly off center.
Yes Nate, the two axes z and z′ are separate. They are separated by a distance d.
I couldn’t really have explained it any more clearly than in my previous comment.
Keep on denying.
JD,
“Nate, at the center of the platform, the puck is ‘rotating on its own axis’, due to the motion of the platform. When you move the puck off center, it is then orbiting, due to the motion of the platform.”
Fine, you can describe it that way. But it is the situation described by the parallel axis thm.
Therefore it applies.
“Keep on denying.”
If you are actually interested in honest debate, stop with the snark.
If you have a specific disagreement point to it.
Case 2 is our situation. Yes or No? If no, why?
“Fine, you can describe it that way. But it is the situation described by the parallel axis thm.“
No Nate, because the puck doesn’t just need to be “orbiting”, it also needs to be “rotating on its own axis”, as explained.
Nate says: “Fine, you can describe it that way. But it is the situation described by the parallel axis thm. Therefore it applies.”
Yes, the theorem applies, but the second term is ZERO, as the puck is not “rotating on its own axis”. It is only moving translationally, due to the movement of the platform.
Essentially, the theorem is not needed, in this case.
“Yes, the theorem applies, but the second term is ZERO, as the puck is not “rotating on its own axis”. It is only moving translationally, due to the movement of the platform.”
The second term is not zero in the situation we have, with an object displaced by d and going around (as you call it, orbiting).
That is the point of the theorem.
Look at this picture. Now change the peanut shape into a hockey puck shape. Imagine a large platform beneath.
That is our situation with the hockey puck close to the platform center, but still offset.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/parax.html
“No Nate, because the puck doesnt just need to be orbiting, it also needs to be rotating on its own axis, as explained.”
There is no additional ‘rotating on its own axis’ required in Case 2, which is our situation.
You said this, but when I asked you to point out the language, it does not actually say that.
Remember it says “instead” it is rotating about a new axis. That means orbiting (as you and JD call it).
See the hyperphysics picture. That is our situation with the puck.
If at first you don’t succeed, just keep making the same mistake over and over again.
DREMT,
So you are saying that you are unable to see that the hyperphysics picture is exactly our situation with the puck?
OK. I guess you don’t have the visual, geometric or logical skills needed to apply a science principle like this one to a real problem.
Oh well. Hopefully you have other talents.
Nate, you appear to be confusing “angular momentum” with “moment of inertia”. They are not the same. The parallel-axis theorem applies to moment of inertia. You cannot assume a moment of inertia is angular momentum.
The puck resting off center has a “moment of inertia”. But its “angular momentum” is based its actual motion. A body at rest has a calculable moment of inertia, to a referenced axis. But, if it is stationary, it has no angular momentum. So if the puck is not rotating on its own axis, it has no angular momentum about its axis.
Nate, I will leave you to it. Don’t forget to consider that professional help.
The problem was to find the angular momentum of the hockey puck where the incorrect answer is (mwr^2)/2 and the reprobate doesn’t even know why that answer is so wrong.
Learn some physics JD, seek out & understand the expert on the internet where you copied the problem. Race horses (real or wooden) do not run tail first down the backstretch should be a hint that JD will not understand.
Ball4
L = Iw.
I for solid cylinder is mr^2/2, rotation about its axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia
Nate, look back at the original hockey puck problem statement by JD. Hint: did the reprobate specify an axis?
In the other poorly stated example by the reprobate, did JD specify an illumination? No, reprobates understand very little about physics, just what they read on the internet and repeat mostly by rote. The reprobate needs to learn some physics.
“A hockey puck rests flat at the very center of the merry-go-round. Its center of mass is exactly over the center of the merry-go-round.”
But fluffball will just find some way to avoid reality.
That’s the advantage of cuddling with the dead squirrel.
“For part 1, what is the angular momentum of the puck?”
Hint answer: No specification of which axis. Reprobates do not know physics well enough to even know why specifying the axis is important. Undoubtedly the expert that JD copied from specified the axis for the angular momentum but JD was so inept as to not even know why that is important.
This is similarly the issue about the illumination problem also, JD needs to learn some physics not just rote copy. JD doesn’t know enough physics to properly state a physics problem copied from the internet. JD makes a similar mistake in orbital mechanics of the moon JD copied from somewhere, very typical.
But fluffball will just find some way to avoid reality.
That’s the advantage of cuddling with the dead squirrel.
Fluffball is so predictable.
In part, because reprobate JD is so predictably wrong. Great amusement, little correct physics from JD.
JD, Ok progress on moment of inertia.
Are you saying L =Iw does not apply here to the puck?
That is the whole point of finding I of a mass when off-center, is for finding its angular momentum and energy.
w is describing its motion (orbiting at that rate)
Nate, off center, the puck has two moments. One about its own center of mass, and one about the center of the platform.
So angular momentum due to the puck’s center of mass would be Iw = I(0) = 0.
Angular momentum about center of platform would be mwr^2.
“Angular momentum about center of platform would be mwr^2.”
And we’re back to square one.
L= Iw. And I is calculated with parallel axis thm.
You have to decide, am I going to follow the science where it leads, or just declare my belief.
“So angular momentum due to the pucks center of mass would be Iw = I(0) = 0.”
No. The theorem gives the moment of inertia for the puck, which is
mr^2/2 + md^2, yes?
There are indeed two terms in the expression for I, but there is only one object, the puck.
We know that L = Iw when an object is spinning with angular velocity w.
One object means one w. There is not a separate w for each term. No where does it say to do that.
Nor does it make any logical sense, your answer: L = Mwr^2 (where is d?) is the result for a point mass if d = r.
The puck is NOT A POINT MASS. It has mass spread out to radii well beyond its cm.
That means more angular momentum than a point mass.
DREMT
If you find yourself in a cabin on a ship, and someone tells you the book you’re reading is traveling at 20 knots, do the following:
– glue the book to the floor, making sure it is physically unable to move.
– as a test, measure its distance to the nearest wall. Wait five minutes, and measure again…..definitely hasn’t moved!
– draw a circle on the floor near the book. If the person claims the atoms in the circle are travelling at 20 knots, from ANY frame of reference, tell him to seek professional help.
What if that ship was caught in whirlpool in the ocean? Nope, once again, the book is definitely is not spinning either! It has not moved one iota. And me in the room? I am not getting dizzy either!
Yep, the book would be spinning, and you in the room, etc. And yes the book is travelling 20 knots, because the ship is.
All straw men.
I will seek professional help from the ship’s doctor to treat my imaginary dizziness.
The ship’s doctor will send me to a psychiatrist, since there are no physical reasons for me to feel dizzy.
The shrink will say to me (in a German accent):
“How long have you be feeling zeeze dizziness?”
I will say:
“Ever since the ship was caught in this @#$-ing whirlpool!”
The shrink will ponder, and say:
“Zees ist the strangest phenomenon I have ever seen!. One for the medical journal.”
The shrink will escort me to my cabin and say:
“See? Das glued Buch on the floor ist not moving. Ya??”
I will hang my head in defeat and say:
“Ya”.
The shrink will say to me:
“Here. Nehmen Sie zees Haldol pill twice a day”
As I just said, I am not arguing against those points.
SGW, I get that you are having fun, but I agree that the dizziness would be real. Sorry to burst your bubble. You can get dizzy on a merry-go-round, too, since the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis.
Yes, the book is glued to the floor, so not moving. You are making progress, SGW. Keep going.
Snape, I am glad you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, but the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis from any frame of reference. The merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis. The horses, or indeed any parts of the merry-go-round, are revolving about THAT axis, only. The horses are not rotating about their own axis. So you can sit on the horse, and face north, then west, then south, then east, because the horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. It is not, however, rotating about its own center of mass.
You can try to make fun of me all you want, but unless and until you can understand what I have just said, YOU are the one looking foolish.
The atoms comprising the floor within the chalk circle, certainly can be considered to be moving, since the entire platform is rotating. However, the floor in that chalk circle is not rotating around a point in its center, as the platform rotates. The atoms comprising the floor within the chalk circle, are not collectively rotating around a point in the center of the chalk circle.
You can argue that the atoms in the chalk circle are moving, or not moving, from different reference frames.
You can not argue that the atoms in the chalk circle are collectively rotating around a point in the center of the chalk circle, from any reference frame.
Same thing with the wooden horse, or you sitting on the wooden horse.
Please let me know how simple I need to make this, before you understand.
Guesstimate for October UAH (up to Oct 23) : +0.16
It is higher try +.25
We should average all the guesstimates.
And then see how far the actual is from the “consensus”!
Actually I now have it down to 0.14 up to the 25th. But it should rise slightly by the end of the month.
But there seems to be a high margin of error, so it’s possible you could be right. However I suspect you are using your weatherbell land-based data which of course is out of phase with the satellite data by a number of months. Nick Stokes’ version is at +0.253 as at the 26th.
Nate-
If you had a wheel shape space station spinning to create artificial gravity. Floors closer to axis/hub will have less artificial gravity.
And if closer to hub, if you jump up, when you land, you notice the direction of the spin. And if closer to hub, you can get dizzy.
Some beautiful pictures of our Moon…
https://tinyurl.com/y7e9wkct
Of interest too:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html#.W9RKKNSLTGg
DREMT
“You can not argue that the atoms in the chalk circle are collectively rotating around a point in the center of the chalk circle, from any reference frame.”
Of course I can. Its the same basic idea we’ve been arguing about for almost a year.
******
Draw a line through the middle of the circle. The circle and the line will rotate together WRT north. I.e, when one side of the line points north, the opposite side will point south, and so on.
Which way does the center of the line point??
You didnt understand. Oh well. Not my problem.
BC Climate Action Enthusiast Accidentally Demonstrates the Need for Reliable Energy
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/26/bc-climate-action-enthusiast-accidentally-demonstrates-the-need-for-reliable-energy/
” “I think that people really don’t understand climate change because they don’t even understand what the air is made of. And you know what? It’s not their fault,” Baute said.
…
He originally planned to stay in the cube for three days, banking on his plants to absorb most of the CO2 and keep him safe.
But cloudy weather meant the plants couldn’t do their job, and he had to emerge early.”
I would guess if he did this in the Summer, rather Fall, he might have had enough sunlight for the plants to remove enough CO2.
It’s cloudy in the summer in BC, but even if cloudy, the light levels would been higher, and most importantly the day time is a lot longer than the night in summer.
But there is a fair amount of uncertainty, because the guy is not the only consumer of O2 in the plastic box.
As I recall human make about 1/3 kg of CO2 per day, but it seems quite possible other things in the box could have made more CO2 than this. Plants also “exhale” CO2, but in sunlight they can convert more CO2, then they can use.
It also seems possible that in low light levels they produce more CO2, then compared to times of darkness. The plants are competitive with other plants, and rather than store sugars they might used it more- if it’s an competitive advantage in some way.
But more significant is there is more than just plant life and human in the box. There is all kinds of microbial life- both the human and plants need microbial life in order to live:
“Regardless of whether you are more like Pig-Pen or Little Miss Tidy, all humans carry around several pounds of living bacteria and related ilk on and in their bodies”
https://www.livescience.com/20929-microbes-healthy-humans-microbiome.html
And in the soil there is microbial life which helpful to the plants and/or mostly parasite to plant. Plus microbial life which has little direct relation to the plants. And microbial in the air and on every surface within the tent.
Or without the plants, he might have had less CO2 build up in the tent.
I was going to talk about the Moon and that a lot countries seem to be interested in doing something on the Moon. Over decades such interest appears cyclical and I have no clue whether this cycle is going anywhere.
Then wonder how crops are currently growing in greenhouses:
“There are over 40,000 farms growing crops indoors in the US. Thats over 1B square feet of growing area. In fact, when you see hothouse stickers on the tomatoes you buy in NY this winter, that means it was grown inside a greenhouse. These 40,000 growers produce a market value of $14.8B annually.”
https://medium.com/agrilyst/lets-talk-about-market-size-316842f1ab27
And it is much bigger globally.
Now, I have long thought that Mars is best place to grow crops- not because of light levels, but mainly due to the 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 in the Mars atmosphere. So the CO2 and the potential for lots of cheap water. And in terms of light levels- certainly better than Canada. But with Mars one would growing plants in greenhouses- you need a lot greenhouses and you need to grow it at low cost, but low cost could be 10 to 100 times as expensive and growing crops on Earth, though over enough time, reach parity with Earth prices.
The reason why one grows anything in greenhouse is because it’s cheaper- and cheaper includes providing a better product at a better time. Some think answer to feeding 9 billion people could by using greenhouses. I think that is overstating it. I think grow enough food for 50 billion people without greenhouse, but one might be able to grow food in greenhouses cheaper for 9 million people. And having cheap artificial lighting could a large factor in this. Or the lefties craving for higher electrical prices, could slow it down a bit.
And returning back to the topic of Moon, other than lack of CO2 and water, growing plants indoor using artificial light [including “piped sunlight”] could possible on large scale. And it’s possible there are large “natural” underground spaces on the Moon. Though I tend to think Mars has more of this than the Moon.
I think with Mars if you can get enough liquid transparent stuff [water/saltwater/polluted water] cheap enough, you put greenhouse under it. In order to have pressure and to have a constant temperature. I mentioned this before, and of course people can live and play under the water.
gbaikie…”Then wonder how crops are currently growing in greenhouses:”
In your article, they mention indoor cannabis gro-ops. They use high-intensity lighting to replace sunlight.
I think heat is more important for plant growth in greenhouses during winter. My dad was in that business for a while and he had large greenhouses in Scotland in which he grew plants in winter. Scotland is notoriously dull and gray during winter.
My dad had 6″ pipes under the soil that delivered hot air from a furnace. That seemed to be all he needed to supply the plants so they’d grow. They got enough solar energy, even through an overcast sky.
I was quite young during my visits to his greenhouses but I do recall the pleasant warmth on opening a door and entering. Even in winter.
It seems the sunlight diffusing through clouds is sufficient to maintain certain kinds of plants. Here in Vancouver, it’s always green with plant life even when the sky is overcast during the winter. In fact, the intensity of summer sunlight will often cause plants to shrivel up and die, including grass.
It seems there is more to photosynthesis than what meets the eye.
gbaikie…”Its cloudy in the summer in BC….”
During the past summer, from mid-July to mid-August, in the Vancouver, BC, area, there was barely any cloud in the sky. That is a more typical scenario in SW BC during summer. We seldom have an overcast cloudiness that blocks sunlight.
Elsewhere in BC, it is variable due to thundercloud activity. We seldom get thunder clouds during summer in SW BC, and very seldom thunder itself. In south central BC, there is thunder and lighting almost regularly.
We do have more than our share of eco-loonies, however. Our current governing body is being held in power in a minority government by 3 eco-loonies in the Green Party.
The eco-looney in this article may have been able to survive on the oxygen in the tent if he calculated the dimensions correctly. That’s provided he kept still and maintained a low metabolic rate.
–Gordon Robertson says:
October 27, 2018 at 1:47 PM
gbaikie…”Its cloudy in the summer in BC….”
During the past summer, from mid-July to mid-August, in the Vancouver, BC, area, there was barely any cloud in the sky. That is a more typical scenario in SW BC during summer. We seldom have an overcast cloudiness that blocks sunlight.-
Ok, I made mistake of thinking of Vancouver Island- specifically northern Vancouver island, where I grew up. And waiting for week or two clear skies, before considering that it warm enough to go swimming- kind of sticks in my mind
But I meant even if it’s cloudy in summer, one would get more sunlight than cloudy in mid October.
This year it has quite cloudy in southern California- but it’s typical to not have much clouds, unless on the coast- and which the morning clouds tends to burn off by noon.
As to when summer starts and ends:
“Most people consider the first day of summer to be the summer solstice, which rings in at 6:07 a.m. EDT on June 21 this year.
…
Most meteorologists will argue that summer has been well under way by then and they have been enjoying at least three weeks — if not longer — of “summer” already. Meteorologists observe seasons over different time periods. Meteorological summer begins on June 1, fall begins September 1 and winter begins December 1. ”
https://www.weatherbug.com/news/When-Does-Summer-Begin
I tend to think starts in June and ends early Sept. And BC this period has long day hours.
And remember as a little kid being required to go to asleep when their was still daylight [seemed quite unfair to me- and not particularly easy to do]
gbaikie…”I made mistake of thinking of Vancouver Island- specifically northern Vancouver island….”
Yeah, the northern part of the Island is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and I guess the weather is more erratic up there. In Vancouver, we are blocked from the Pacific by the Island and the Gulf Islands.
On the Olympic Peninsula, south of the Island, in the US, the mountains are wet on the oceans side, I think it is, and dry on the southern slopes.
We do get unsettled weather in June and it can run into July, but there is usually plenty of solar energy coming through the clouds…or the clouds are those fluffy cumulo-types with blue sky between them.
Nice place to grow up, on the north end of the Island, if the cougars don’t get you. Referring to the cougars with long tails and paws.
Were you near Port Hardy? Or further north? I got a ferry from Port Hardy to Rupert once. It was an over-nighter, so I got a cabin and slept.
Not sure I have ever been to Port Hardy.
No, I lived in the “Salmon Capital of the World”, Campbell River. And according to Wiki, also called Wiwek̓a̱m, but I can’t say I heard anyone call it that.
I like/amused by what wiki says:
“In recent years, Campbell River, about half-way up Vancouver Island, has continued to mark the boundary between the more developed south and the wild and natural areas in the northern part of the island.”
Lived on the Island Hwy, across strait is Quadra island- and via it, you get could to Cortes island with ferry.
And on clear day can see behind it the large mountains on the Mainland.
Lots of gravel roads there when I was kid, and they have added a lot more roads and pavement since then. Though I guess one could still find a lot unpaved logging roads.
gbaikie…”Lived on the Island Hwy, across strait is Quadra island….”
Comox is nearby as well, and Powell River just across the water.
Went to a party on Quadra Island, in a cabin near a small lake, where they were serving hard liquor, beer, and wine. Suffered one of the worst hangovers I have ever experienced, mixing wine with the other two.
Part of the reason I no longer drink alcohol.
Plenty of unpaved logging roads still.
You would likely not believe how quickly the Island is developing.
Why Don’t Jews Believe in Original Sin?
“This is a delicate question, as it exposes one of the fundamental differences between the Christian outlook and the Jewish one.”
https://pjmedia.com/faith/ask-rabbi-dont-jews-believe-original-sin/
Linked from
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
And something I was not aware of:
“What is the Jewish concept of the satan? Well, we agree with the Christians that he is a mal’ach, conventionally translated “angel,” but there’s nothing “fallen” about him. He works for the same Divine Boss as all the other mal’achim. Think of the satan (the word means “adversary”) as the proctor of an exam. The proctor isn’t actively rooting for you to fail the test; to the contrary, he wants you to pass. But he administers a tough test, to be certain that it tests all your capabilities and that you’ve mastered the material, i.e. the life lessons available from one’s parents and other mentors. If you manage to pass the test, no one is happier than the satan.”
Of course this one Jew’s view of it.
But I also imagine other Jews might more or less agree with such an interpretation.
Disclaimer, I am not Christian or Jewish, but I think it’s reasonable to interested in both these great religions. Nor do rule out possibility that in future I might somehow become more than merely “interested” in one these faiths.
I also think it’s almost insane and/or ignorant- to dismiss or oppose such great faiths.
Anyhow, I tend agree with idea of original sin.
And also I reject idea that any mere Angel like Satan, has any right to test me- and Satan is definitely, evil.
And also I would say Satan didn’t create original sin- rather it’s inherent in humans. Though perhaps, humans created it.
All this btw, is in realm of metaphor- or a pathway to knowing about something.
[[I think humans were different thousands of years ago, and will be different thousands of years in future- and of course, biology is not what I mean. Though there is “some quantity” of sameness- or we would have accept it’s hopeless to understand the humans of past or the future understanding us.]]
I know God exists- though I aware of my limitation of knowing anything.
For instance, I know the sun exists and gravity exist, what exactly the sun is, or gravity is [or anything is] is different issue.
But much less certain in regards to such entities as angels.
I don’t know that Angels exist- particular the Host of them.
And there is no evidence of any of them.
But what are angels but god’s bureaucrats?
I have little faith in bureaucrats, and I certainly don’t trust them.
gbaikie…”What is the Jewish concept of the satan?”
Religious scholar, Elaine Pagels, a professor at Princeton, has written an excellent book on Satan. Apparently, most of it is myth created by humans.
It’s covered decently in this article about Elaine Pagels and the tragedies in her life…the loss of a son and her husband.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/04/03/the-devil-problem
An interesting quote on women from the article, by a poobah in the Catholic church, now known as a Saint Paul, once stated re women that:
“By the year 200, Christian feminism was clearly brought to an end by the text known in the New Testament as Pauls First Epistle to Timothy: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
This attitude about women has remained throughout much of religion today. In the 5th century AD, a Catholic pope declared Mary Magdalene as essentially a prostitute, even though she was highly regarded by Jesus. It took the Catholic church till 1939 to rescind that nonsense.
She was as much a disciple as any male disciple, yet she is not regarded as such by the church. When Jesus was arrested, all the other disciples ran for the hills, but she remained close to Jesus.
Although Paul is often called ‘Paul the Apostle’, Mary, under the instructions of Jesus, is the first apostle. According to New Testament sources, Jesus instructed her to carry his message to the other disciples, making her the first apostle. She was the apostle to the apostles.
THE THERMOSPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: There’s a new data feed on Spaceweather.com–the daily Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI).
http://spaceweather.com/
“the full story.”:
Oct. 26, 2018: The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) is now on Spaceweather.com. TCI is a relatively new space weather metric that tells us how the top of Earths atmosphere (or thermosphere) is responding to solar activity. During Solar Max the top of our atmosphere heats up and expands. Right now the opposite is happening. Solar minimum is here and the thermosphere is cooling off:
…
Finally, please be aware that the thermosphere is very far above our headsmore than 100 km high. Just because the rarefied air up there is cooling off, it doesnt mean the surface of the Earth is getting colder. Not yet, at least. Stay tuned for updates as the solar cycle progresses.”
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/10/26/a-new-space-weather-metric/
This whole moon orbit has become far too fixated on merry-go-rounds and chalk circles and wagons moving in PERFECT CIRCLES. Circular orbits are easy. And every ones of the explanations that have been presented predicts the exact same motion — one side always facing the planet.
If you really want to show you understand orbits, you should be able to explain/describe what happens for NON-circular orbits. For a moon in a highly elliptical orbit that always has the same face toward the planet every time the moon is closest to the planet, how does the moon face the REST of the orbit?
a) The same face is always toward the planet (ie toward one focus of the ellipse)
b) The same face is always toward the center of the ellipse.
c) The same face always perpendicular to the direction of travel
d) something else.
If you can’t convincingly argue for one and against the others, then you don’t understand orbits. So pick one — convince us. Or shut up about “horses” and “wagons” and “the good old days”.
Tim, you clearly don’t understand orbital motion. You are fixated on trying to defend pseudoscience. You are so obsessed that you are willing to openly misrepresent others. You twist and spin facts, as your last comment indicates. You are corrupting yourself, trying to defend a false belief.
The Moon appears to always have the same side toward Earth because it is undergoing translational motion, but NOT rotating on its own axis. A toy train is an adequate model of such motion.
In fact, the Moon has such low eccentricity, its orbit is almost a circle. It is NOT in a “highly elliptical orbit”, as you tried to imply. (Moon’s eccentricity is about 0.05, a perfect circle is zero.)
Learn some physics, face reality, and clean up your act.
JD, you clearly don’t understand orbital motion. You are fixated on trying to defend pseudoscience — horses on merry-go-rounds and chalk circles and toy trains.
The moon does NOT always show the same side toward the earth. In particular:
“Libration in longitude is the moon’s east-west wobble. This sort of libration is a product of the moon’s elliptical (elongated) orbit. Although the moon’s rotation, or spin, goes at a nearly constant rate, its orbital speed varies, going fastest at perigee (moon’s closest point to Earth) and slowest at apogee (moon’s farthest point from Earth). …
Maximum librations are seen about one week after perigee and one week after apogee, revealing (depending upon the month) up to 8° of longitude on the moon’s back side, along the eastern and western limbs, respectively.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration#longitude
Even for the slightly elliptical orbit of the moon, a toy train is NOT an adequate model for the orbit.
Learn some physics, face reality, and clean up your act.
Dim Tim, Moon’s libration is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. Spin, twist, alter, change, confuse, and hinder reality all you want, but it’s still there.
Reality ain’t going away.
Deal with it!
Also, learn how to turn off italics….
“Moons libration is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.”
JD avoids reality yet again.
JD, if “always facing straight toward the earth” is “not rotating” according to you, and the moon changes from that orientation, then it must be rotating. Rotating slightly forward for a couple weeks, then rotating slightly backwards for a couple weeks.
And what cause that forward and backward wobble? What torque makes it rotate ahead and then rotate backwards? How could a ‘toy train’ wobble like that as it explains how orbits work?
[Of course, JD will have no answer, so he will just repeat some variation of his previous empty posts, never actually addressing any issue. All he can do now is misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult.]
Tim, if you understood orbits, I would not have to explain this to you.
What we call “libration” is NOT the Moon rotating on its own axis. It is only an ability to see more of the Moon from Earth, due to its position in its orbit.
If you were inside the racetrack, you would see only the left side of the racehorse, as it passed between you and the stands. As it neared the far end of the track, you would see more of its rear. As it rounded the far end and started back, you would see more of its head. The horse is NOT rotating on its axis, just because you see different views. His left side ALWAYS faces toward the inside of the track. His motion is “translational”. He is merely orbiting, as is the Moon.
So, the Moon does not have a “forward and backward wobble”. You just do not understand its motion.
Libration is only an ability to see more of the Moon from Earth, due to its position in its orbit caused by the moon rotating on its own axis.
Fluffball confuses “libration” with “libation”.
That happens often with addicts.
Here is why the horse on an oval track is not a good model of the Moon orbiting the Earth.
The Moon does not orbit the Earth at a constant velocity, like a horse on a racetrack could, the velocity of the Moon varies according to Kepler’s Laws. The horse runs as fast as he wants and spins as fast as he needs to negotiate the turns, the Moon spins at a constant rate, which causes some of the far side to come in and out of view.
Three sentences, so I am only wrong thrice, I should go read some Melville so I could get it down to once, or is this the fourth error?
Or fifth, If the Moon was like a racehorse you would see the librations as it went down the straightaways.
Now, sixth, but the Moon doesn’t have any straightaways.
A racehorse is a good model for translational motion, which is what the Moon is doing. Just as the horse is not “rotating on its own axis”, neither is the Moon.
JD avoids reality yet again.
I guess you won’t read and understand
A racehorse doesn’t do what the Moon does, so it’s a piss poor model for what the Moon is actually, in reality doing.
You just won’t face that reality, that reality that you are wrong and know nothing about what the Moon is doing as it goes about the Earth in synchronous rotation.
Look it up, study some Astronomy for once.
Maybe try this one, seems about your speed.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10578522?selectedversion=NBD268068
bob, a racehorse is a good model for translational motion, which is what the Moon is doing. Just as the horse is not “rotating on its own axis”, neither is the Moon.
Hurry and get your dead squirrel. The stress seems to be getting to you. A dead squirrell will solve all your problems. You don’t want to a complete derelict, like fluffball. He responded in TWO minutes!
Talk about obsessed….
Ball4 responded in TWO minutes because instant correction isn’t fast enough. Only in JD’s distorted view of reality do racehorses run tail first down the backstretch and the moon does not always present same face forward.
JD drives straight into a ditch yet again.
JD says “A racehorse is a good model for translational motion, which is what the Moon is doing. Just as the horse is not rotating on its own axis, neither is the Moon.”
No, a race horse is NOT a good model. A racehorse always runs facing straight forward. The moon doesn’t. If a specific crated is facing straight forward along the path of the moon at the closest point in the orbit, it will point diagonally outward for a while. The racehorse will be aimed crooked; it will have ‘yaw’ using the vocab of ships and planes. Later, the yaw will be inward. Then outward again. Then inward again. Any model of the moon must be able to deal with this detail. Your ‘racehorse running along the track’ fails.
Just one more question JD,
Which is the Moon doing, translational motion or orbiting?
My diagnosis is that you have a dead squirrel between your ears and it is confounding your attempts to think clearly.
And by the way, libration comes in three flavors, Gordon nailed one, myself and others described the longitudinal flavor, and there is still a third of the latitudinal kind.
See if you can fit those three into your racehorse model.
“Your racehorse running along the track fails.”
No fail, the actual racehorse also isn’t perfectly rotating on its axis as it moves in to the rail from the start and maybe drifts out in the turns. Same action as the moon exhibits.
Dim, your pathetic tricks are always desperate fails.
The racehorse, or racecar, or toy train are all good models for translational motion, which is what orbiting is, which is what the Moon is doing.
Hold that dead squirrel over your head and chant 99 times, out loud, “Reality is anything I want it to be”.
Don’t be concerned if people laugh at you. They probably are just jealous of your dead squirrel….
bob asks: “Which is the Moon doing, translational motion or orbiting?”
bob, orbiting, by itself, is “translational”. The Moon is only orbiting. The Earth is both orbiting and “rotating on its own axis”.
If the moon were only orbiting, it would not present same face forward all the time. Since the moon does always present same face forward, the moon also rotates on its own axis once per orbit.
Fluffball demonstrates the magic power of his dead squirrel. Anything is possible with a dead squirrel.
Cuddle to that dead squirrel. Then you don’t have to learn any physics, or face reality.
Ball4, a car ‘drifting’ is not the same idea.
The key to the ‘yaw’ problem is to understand this image illustrating Kepler’s Law: https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/christensen/physics%20127/Figures/Gravity%20and%20Planetary%20Motions/klrlrlrl5lll6l9l%20bjjadas.jtyp.jpg
(and of course, think of a moon instead of a planet, and a planet instead of the sun (which will almost certainly trigger some rant by JD.))
Anyway, each point around the orbit is 1/12 of the total period for the orbit. So imagine putting an “X” on the moon directly facing the earth at point “A” (ie on teh right side).
At Point “D”, the moon has traveled for 3/12 = 1/4 of the orbital period. The “X” is now facing “up” which is NOT toward the planet. The moon has “yawed’ quite far. By the time the moon gets to “G” (1/2 of the oribtal period, the “X” is once again facing the planet and the ‘yaw’ has corrected itself.
JD,
Maybe you should crack open those musty old physics books and see if rotational motion and translational motion are the same.
Hint: not exactly
bob, are you trying to inaccurately imply I don’t know the difference? Are you denying all of my previous explanations?
You no longer have to use such deceitful tactics. I gave all clowns the “dead squirrel”. Just grab onto your dead squirrel, believe what you want, and ignore reality.
If things don’t go well for you, blame the dead squirrel….
It’s more than “not exactly”, bob.
“Translational” and “rotating on its own axis” are entirely different motions.
Keep learning.
JD,
Your own words show you think they are the same
“bob, orbiting, by itself, is “translational”. ”
So I can only assume you don’t know the difference.
JD,
How are you doing explaining the three kinds of libration with your racehorse model?
But you a dozen kumquats you can’t do it.
boob, “orbiting” is “transitional”.
“Rotating on its own axis” is an entirely different motion.
What confuses clowns is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” can occur together, as with Earth. Or, only “orbiting” can occur, as with Moon.
It can be very confusing to someone who has not studied physics.
Which proves the reprobate hasn’t studied physics being so wrong about the moon. Learn some physics JD.
“a car ‘drifting’ is not the same idea.”
A car is not a horse.
JD,
Check your textbooks and get back to me.
You’re wrong as usual, orbiting and translational are different.
Orbiting and rotating on an axis are similar, but translational is like a bullet fired from a gun.
I am beginning to think you will never get it.
boob, the Moon’s momentum provides its velocity vector, which is essentially “translational”. That is, if there were no other forces, the Moon would continue in a straight line.
But, Earth’s gravity provides another vector. This vector forces the instantaneous turning of the Moon. So the Moon turns, as does the racehorse, but it continues in its translation motion. It is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
You choice, reality or the dead squirrel?
I said go back to your physics books, I am starting to believe you don’t even have any.
You are missing a vector, there be three vectors.
If you count the squirrel living or dead between your ears, the velocity vector and the acceleration vector that makes three.
Maybe you could look it up in your physics book and replace the squirrel with an actual vector.
Yes JD the Moon turns, as does the racehorse in the turns, JD is just tangled up in semantics not having learned the basic physics. JD turns when driving a car, rotating on its axis, in the turns or JD goes straight into the ditch. Such comedy, more please.
No boob, I’ve explained this to you before.
Your “third vector” is a “pseudovector”. The other two vectors control the Moon’s motion.
bobd….”Your own words show you think they are the same
“bob, orbiting, by itself, is “translational”. ”
So I can only assume you don’t know the difference”.
**********
Orbiting, as in the Moon as a rigid body with one face constantly facing the Earth, is translation. That’s the definition of translation….all points in the body must move in parallel lines to the direction of motion. Straight-line motion (rectilinear) is distinguished from curved motion (curvilinear) only by the straight and curved directions.
The word rotation can have different meanings depending on the context. A rigid body can rotate about it’s own axis, it can rotate around an external axis, or both. Rotation around an external axis normally means the rigid body is attached to the axis by some means. That also describes curvilinear motion, even though curvilinear translation is related to a translation of axes wrt a central focus.
An orbit is ‘normally’ in reference to celestial bodies held in a circular or elliptical path by gravitational force. A horse would not normally be regarded as orbiting a race track, nor would it be regarded as rotating either around the centre of the track or about its own axis.
With regard to libration, if you had a helicopter or a plane flying in circles off the end of the track, observing the horse, an observer would see slightly different sides of the horse than an observer in the stands at the centre of the curve. That’s all libration is about.
ball4…”Yes JD the Moon turns, as does the racehorse in the turns, JD is just tangled up in semantics not having learned the basic physics. JD turns when driving a car, rotating on its axis, in the turns or JD goes straight into the ditch”.
*****
It is you who lacks basic physics. A rotation requires an angular velocity of a line wrt to a reference frame. A horse rotating about its axis would require a line from head to tail to turn through 360 degrees wrt to the horse’s COG.
If you place such a reference frame on a horse running on the straight portion of the track, the head to tail line is the x-axis and a line perpendicular is the y-axis. Does that axis rotate on the straight portion of the track? If you think it does, you’re a looney.
When the horse hits the curve, why should the axis begin rotating? There is no lateral force on the horse to cause such rotation and even if there was, the horse is attached to the ground via it’s hooves which support a lot of weight.
If a horse stood with all four legs on the ground, could you push its butt laterally and cause it to rotate? If you think you could, you are what you’re trying to push, a horse’s ass.
There are no lateral forces on the horse that could cause a rotation about its axis. Same for the Moon, there are no tangential forces that could cause it to turn on its axis. There could be angular momentum, as with the Earth, but the Moon obviously has none otherwise the face toward the Earth would move away from it.
“Does that axis rotate on the straight portion of the track?”
Ever actually watch a horse race Gordon? Do you observe the rider and horse “jockey” for position? Turning a bit toward the rail turning a bit away from the rail to clear a slower horse. So yes in reality the horse turns in the front and back stretches a bit but never runs tail first as JD and the team claim.
“When the horse hits the curve, why should the axis begin rotating?”
Because the horse turns in the turn. If the axis does not begin turning in the turn, the horse runs straight off the track. You turn your car in a turn if you want to stay on the road. No difference. Or you can drive straight into the ditch if you prefer.
“There is no lateral force on the horse to cause such rotation”
There is Gordon. Reacted by the inertia of the earth. Ever hear of free body diagrams? Do one on a race horse in a turn for practice & have someone that knows statics and dynamics grade your FBD until you understand.
“Same for the Moon, there are no tangential forces that could cause it to turn on its axis.”
Not true Gordon. Do some research on that. The moon is also accelerating in its orbit and falling forward speeding up a bit slowly increasing its orbital distance from earth.
All way beyond an electronics tech. but Gordon can open the appropriate physics text and learn about these things.
If the moon’s rotation per orbit were different than 1 full spin THEN the face toward the Earth would move away.
Just the five comments, Ball4?
No, one comment wouldn’t go. Blog rules being what they are.
Line drawers draw lines
Curve drawers draw curves
The Moon does not travel in straight lines, more of a corkscrew path.
So it can’t be parallel, therefore not translational.
Maybe you mean rectumlinear?
And Gordon, I gave you credit for one of the libration modes, but there are two more, one due to the Moon rotating on its axis as it revolves around the earth in an elliptical orbit and the third because that orbit is inclined, ie it is not on the same plane that is perpendicular to earth’s rotation.
You guys can keep making up definitions as you will but that is the path of the Red Queen.
See Lewis Caroll, if you don’t know what I mean.
And JD, the other vector is angular momentum due to the Moon revolving around the earth, even if you deny that the Moon is spinning on its axis.
But yes it is.
bob,
The Moon is not “rotating on its axis”.
Charles spelled his pen name with 2 rs, as “Carroll”.
And, as explained to you several times, angular momentum is not a vector, it’s a “pseudovector”.
JD,
Ah, here’s the rub
pseudovectors are vectors
So you are again showing you don’t have a clue.
No bob, what I am showing is that you don’t understand the subject.
What you are showing is that you don’t want to learn.
That’s the rub.
Nope JD,
and you argue like a 2 year old.
Show me any textbook that says the Moon doesn’t rotate, and I’ll buy you a steak dinner.
I can’t find the water you want me to drink from.
Show me how a horse on a track can exhibit the 3 forms of libration and I’ll buy the beer to go with the steak.
You should be able to do that.
But I don’t think you can.
Prove me wrong by explaining how a horse can exhibit the three forms of libration or you lose.
Prove you can explain it or it’s proof you don’t know what you are talking about.
bob, prove that you understand orbital motions.
But I don’t think you can.
Looks like you are admitting you don’t know what you are going on about.
Game set match.
You just lost.
bob prefers his dead squirrel over reality.
No surprise….
tim…”And what cause that forward and backward wobble? What torque makes it rotate ahead and then rotate backwards?”
There is no torque, or wobble. Wobble is a poor choice of words. The inferred wobble is the same thing as the tilt of the Earth as it revolves around the Sun. In winter, the Sun does not reach the NP and in summer it does. If you plotted the motion of the Sun’s shadow over the seasons, to the human mind, it would appear as if the Moon was wobbling.
We humans have to get over our stupidity. Our means of viewing reality is distorted due to humans regarding themselves as the centre of the universe. That leads to utterly stupid conclusions like time dilation, space-time, and the Sun seeming to move across the sky.
Libration is the same thing as the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury as viewed from the moving planet Earth. At certain view angles in the relative motion of both planets, the human brain interprets the motion of Mercury as moving backward.
Another form of libration involves our view angle of the north and south poles of the Moon. They SEEM to wobble but that is a product of the stupid part of the human brain that fails to understand relative motion. The same mistake was made in general relativity theory, wherein reality is viewed from the perspective of a defective human mind.
Tim, isn’t JDHuffmans reference frame also a bit wobbly due to precession. It’s not even in the earths rotational plane, so another strange force to invent in his universe.
https://tinyurl.com/y8fwr7ke
He also needs one reference frame for every moon in the universe. Another Occam failure.
Svante, good points, JD doesn’t know what JD is writing about. JD has copied something from the internet without understanding the basic physics of whatever JD copied. Don’t expect any physics value from JD, only entertainment value. And there is plenty of entertainment in all JD’s physics failures. I predict the entertainment will keep on coming.
Ball4
You are correct about JDHuffman. He has only entertainment value. One of his funniest is to deny he is the same poster that previously went by g.e.r.a.n (periods added because the actual posting is banned at this time but the letters are all the same and this on still is active on Joe Postma’s blog).
The interesting part is he was able to convince two other posters of his complete nonsense. DREMT and Gordon Robertson. Convincing Gordon of anything antiscience is relatively easy since he abhors empirical based science in favor of pseudoscience declarations found on blogs. Gordon rejects textbook science and calls it wrong if it contradicts the fantasy unsupported blog declarations from goofballs like Claes Johnson, Herb Rose, Joe Postma, etc.
With Gordon someone makes something up and he believes it blindly, send him a textbook link and he thinks it is full of errors. Gordon Robertson is the true definition of a complete crackpot.
Norman has exhausted his pseudoscience. All he can do now is misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult.
It’s sad to see a clown that is no longer funny….
You know the clowns are really getting desperate when they bring in Svante!
At least he’s funny, especially when he appears as “Mark”.
Using grep to hide my identity?
You’re not even right on that JD.
JDHuffman
I already know this about you, you consider valid textbook physics pseudoscience. You don’t even know what pseudoscience means but you use it often. Just like you know how to spell Wein’s Law but you are clueless of what it means.
You are entertainment only. Ball4 has your number and you can’t get away from it. You never took physics. You learn it all from goofy blogs. Give it up already. Everyone but DREMT knows you are a fraud, a phony and pretend. Now you pretend you never posted as g.e.r.a.n. Hilarious! Who are you fooling? No one on this blog.
Norman, it’s “Wien’s Law”. You still can’t spell it, even after repeatedly being corrected.
Just like you can’t learn physics, after repeatedly being taught.
Your learning disability, combined with your constant personal attacks, just makes you another super-clown.
JDHuffman
The incorrect spelling of Wien’s Law was for your benefit. It is all you know about it so I thought that correcting me would make you happy and it seems it did.
Too bad you don’t understand it or any physics. You are entertaining. Ball4 is totally correct about you. True you don’t know any physics and it seems you never will.
You may know how to spell pseudoscience but you are clueless of what the term means.
You can spell radiative flux but don’t have the slightest ability to grasp what it means.
Maybe you are a world class speller. You flunked physics. You have no clue of how funny your attempts at physics are to people who understand it. What is most hilarious is that you have two people who think you know what you are talking about. That is really funny! I like the entertainment.
Great humor, Norman!
You misspell so you can trick people. Just like you always get physics messed up, so you can trick people.
Tricking yourself is the funny part.
JDHuffman
Not to trick you, it was designed to make you happy. You have a talent in spelling so why not help you correct people’s bad spelling?
My funny could not compare to your funny. You actually think you know what you are talking about. This is really hilarious!
Keep up the entertainment. You do add humor to this scientific blog.
You may not understand any physics. That is okay. You make up with your speelling skills!
Your fiction is getting even better, Grinvalds.
Maybe throw in a little of your funny pseudoscience, now and then.
MikeR says:
January 31, 2018 at 2:26 PM
G* [JDHuffman] you have summed up your position brilliantly, but it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
G* regards himself as a lone voice in the wilderness with his own unique insight. He reveals that because they don’t share his beliefs, the entire world wide astronomical community, as well as the engineers and physicists of NASA, are just pseudo-scientists.
Unfortunately g* your message is not getting through, so it may require you to stand on some street corner and wear a sandwich board with a diagram and regale passers-by with your unique insights. It might take some time for the message to get through to any passing astronomers so you may need some help.
Maybe you could cover the East coast and Halp [DREMT] the West coast or vice versa.
Svante, as usual, you have no point.
But, I was curious about the context that you lifted the comment from. So, I went back to find it, and came across these two G* comments. No wonder the guy scared clowns so much.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284060
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284060
Maybe this winter I will have time to go back and study more of his comments. It would be time well spent.
2nd comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284097
Norm,
If you go to Post*a’s blog in May (the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end), you will see “Ger”-“anne” confirming he posted on Spencer’s site using the same name. Then he confirms he was banned. But on Post*a’s blog, he also engages in a discussion about a physicist named…………..wait for it………..Harry Dale Huff*an. Then “Ger”-“Anne” magically appears on Spencer’s blog in June as JDHuff*an. Not so clever, eh?
* = m
SGW, your “detective work” fails just like your attempted physics fails. You just can’t ignore reality.
You should just stick to comedy. Your continuing fascination with G* is especially funny. He musta really got to you clowns.
ball4…”Convincing Gordon of anything antiscience is relatively easy since he abhors empirical based science in favor of pseudoscience ”
That you, bally, the rocket-scientist who claims heat does not exist and that a wooden horse on a carousel is rotating about its centre of gravity as the carousel turns?
“That you, bally”
No, that was Norman correctly commenting about Gordon ignoring experiment and not being able to correctly observe by simple inspection that a wooden horse on a carousel always turns about its cg to face forward. Also correct about ignoring Clausius’ writing that heat does not exist in favor of Gordon’s own imagination that heat has a physical existence.
The wooden horse on a carousel revolves about an axis in the center of the platform to always face forward.
Ok, DREMT, yes the carousel horse always faces forward now you got it. Try to apply your new found knowledge to the moon also always facing forward rotating on its own axis once per lap.
OK Ball4, yes the carousel horse always faces forward because it is revolving about an axis in the center of the carousel, not on its own axis, now you got it.
DREMT resorts to blog gibberish once again, abandons physics, easy to spot a simpleton.
OK Ball4.
Good, DREMT finally agrees with me. Nice work. Consulting an actual physics text must have worked.
😂
norman…”Ball4 has your number and you cant get away from it”.
Perhaps you could explain ball4’s premise that heat does not exist, that it is merely a measure of energy. Maybe you agree with him, that Q, referred to in the 1st law as heat, is just a measure of itself. You likely also agree with him that temperature is not a measure of heat, as most scientists claim.
According to ball4, heat has replaced temperature as a measure of heat. As I said, the new ball4 manifesto claims that heat is a measure of heat.
Then again, you argue that heat can be transferred in both directions between bodies of different temperatures and that EM from a colder body can be absorbed by a hotter body, causing its temperature to rise.
It’s rather humourous to see you and ball4, with your self-derived, quaint definitions in physics, claiming JD and myself have no understanding of your distortions.
“Maybe you agree with him, that Q, referred to in the 1st law as heat, is just a measure of itself.”
Even I do not agree with that.
“You likely also agree with him that temperature is not a measure of heat, as most scientists claim.”
Quote one scientist or one thermo. text book with that claim. It is Gordon that is wrong.
“heat has replaced temperature as a measure of heat.”
Not according to Ball4.
“ball4 manifesto claims that heat is a measure of heat.”
No.
“EM from a colder body can be absorbed by a hotter body, causing its temperature to rise.”
Gordon gets that right, as is known from experiment. And discussed by Planck in his treatise consistent with 2LOT as entropy is produced in such a process.
“claiming JD and myself have no understanding of your distortions.”
JD the self proclaimed reprobate reads something on the internet and repeats it by rote without understanding the basic physics as does the original author. Similarly, many here claim Gordon has little understanding of the field of thermodynamics. As is obvious in Gordons misunderstanding of 2LOT and heat.
tim…”Libration in longitude is the moon’s east-west wobble”.
Libration is an artefact of the orbit. From what I understand of it, libration is akin to apparent retrograde motion as seen from the Earth wrt to the inner planets.
It’s not as if the Moom is rotating back and forth to a slight degree, it’s all about view angle and relative motion.
When viewed from Earth, which has a much larger diameter, as the observer reaches an extreme in diameter, he/she is able to see more of the Moon’s locked face.
Gordon, how can the moon have precession if there is no rotation?
https://tinyurl.com/o32p55h:
“Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body.”
Svante gets more confused the more he sniffs around wiki! He doesn’t understand orbital motions, and now he doesn’t understand how the gravitational effects of Earth and the Sun cause Moon’s precession.
Svante, just hold on to your dead squirrel. It will solve all your problems. Leave the science to the grownups.
Libration is due to the fact that the moon rotates on its own axis at a constant rate, while revolving about the earth at a variable rate due to the eccentricity of its orbit. It is a result of what you claim is not happening.
boob likes his new dead squirrel.
Reality no longer matters.
“Precession of the Lunar Core”
http://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/precession.pdf
“The orbit of the Moon is inclined by about 5 to the ecliptic and regresses with an 18.6 year period. The rotation of the Moon is synchronous with the orbital motion. The spin axis of the solid Moon is tilted with respect to the ecliptic and its precession is locked to the precession of the orbit:
So who are we to believe? Some clown on the internet ranting nonsense on Spencer’s blog (JD and company)? Or the author of this paper, Dr. Jack Wisdom.
Dr. Wisdom is a professor of planetary sciences at MIT. He has published several papers, and co-authored a textbook entitled “Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics”
This is just ONE published paper. There a hundreds that will tell you the moon spins about its axis.
Our resident clown has his work cut out for him. He must be able to publish hundreds of papers that dispute this fact. Unfortunately, most physics and astrophysics journals will not accept papers that describe physics in terms of rubber bands, trampolines, and diving boards (or squirrels).
JD
I see you have no science with which to challenge my claim.
Well you can’t argue with Dr. Wisdom. Not only is he a doctor, but his surname is also Wisdom.
I just love the comedy of “peer-reviewed” pseudoscience:
“We assume that the Moon rotates synchronously with its orbital motion.”
Jerry Seinfeld.
[Re: Louis C.K., Roseanne and Tense Times in Comedy
Analytical as ever, the comic has strong opinions about disgraced peers like Cosby. He says the audience is always right (even about his #MeToo joke).]
In the case of Cosby, have you had to reassess why you idolized him in the first place?
–Obviously I didn’t know anything [about his crimes]. Do I rethink idolatry? No, I will not give up on having heroes. I know you can get hurt, but I am a hopeful person. I like to believe in people. I said to Ellen DeGeneres, humans — we have an abusive relationship with each other. We hate other people. We despise them. And then we see somebody play a beautiful piano concerto and we go, “Oh, people are the best.” They get us right back for more abuse.–
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/arts/television/jerry-seinfeld-interview.html
LOL
Linked from:
https://www.drudgereport.com/
This is not a blog for random musings.
Jerry Seinfeld as said the audience is always right, but as point of interest, observation might prove this blog seems to have a lot of “random musings” or as others have commented, and I am paraphrasing, of bot like material.
bob….”This is not a blog for random musings”.
Have you consulted with the boss (Roy) on that? Or are you acting on behalf of David Appell, who is also deluded into thinking he runs this blog?
I actually recall him complaining last year or early this year that there were too many comments on topics unrelated to climate.
Norman brought up an interesting idea. Maybe we should always include a spelling or punctuation error in our comments, so instead of ridiculing Huffy’s views on science (detrimental to his self esteem), we could respond with a positive affirmation?
“Thanks, JD, you are such a good speller!”
snape…”Norman brought up an interesting idea”.
Norman??? Interesting idea??? Naw!!!!!
Norman, like the rest of you alarmists is totally into authority figures. None of you are capable of interesting ideas. Please leave that to the rest of us skeptics who specialize in that area.
Gordon Robertson
You’re ideas are not interesting. For one, I am not an alarmist. I consider myself to be scientific minded unlike you who are into made up science. You think an interesting idea makes it a factual truth. That is why I call you (correctly) a crackpot. You are such.
I like interesting ideas. I will not consider them better than empirical truth based physics achieved by the efforts of thousands of scientists doing real experiments (something you will not do).
You are not a good skeptic at all you are bad for the skeptics. Roy Spencer is an actual skeptic. You are just a goofball that makes up all kinds of garbage and thinks that they are good physics. You reject valid physics based upon experimental evidence in favor of a Claes Johnson paper that has no experimental evidence, nothing but his goofy notions of how things work. Sorry your type is horrible for skeptics. You make them look like goofy crackpots.
Norman, it’s a new day for you malicious clowns. There’s no longer a need for you to fake an interest in physics, science, or experiments. There’s no longer a need for you to misrepresent, falsely accuse, or insult. You’ve now got the ultimate weapon–a dead squirrel!
The dead squirrel changes reality to fit your belief systems. Change any and all laws of physics, as needed. The dead squirrel can even change the way words are spelt, to accommodate the more uneducated clowns.
The awesome power of the magic dead squirrel–use it wisely.
JDHuffman
I have no clue what your “dead squirrel” point is about, how it would have any reasonable point to any discussion.
I have a love of science and physics. I know you abhor all science in favor of your unsupported declarations and pseudoscience.
Declare on, it is entertaining to see how bad you can flub up established, rational, logical and experimentally based science in favor of your own declarations.
Norman says: “I have no clue…”
Nothing more needs to be said.
JDHuffman
That is not much of an answer.
Are you relating to any of these?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dead%20squirrel
That’s a perfect example of the nonsense you find on the web. That’s why your “physics” is so messed up. Your education comes from the web.
Enjoy your dead squirrel. It’s all you have….
JD
Please share the source of your physics education. At which university did you earn your physics degree?
des, you haven’t been paying attention, have you?
Oh … so you have no physics degree then. Sorry for not paying attention.
Correct des, my major was not in physics.
Pay closer attention next time.
So you have no degree in physics, and you agree that it is impossible to adequately learn physics from the web. So it has to be concluded that you do not have the physics knowledge to be able to challenge people who DO have a proper physics education.
October UAH guesstimate (up to Oct 28) … +0.15
Im going for broke.. 0.30
I doubt it. Even +0.25 is a stretch, and it could possibly go below +0.1.
What a fantastic collection of clown pseudoscience. It’s always hard to tell if the clowns are incompetent or dishonest. Often, it appears they are both.
There are examples after examples: Reducing the racetrack infinitesimally small, the Ferris wheel, angular momentum, libration, precession, on and on.
I felt sorry for them. Realizing they had nothing, I came up with the dead squirrel.
At least now, they have something….
Enjoy your dead squirrel JD. It’s all you have… Learn some physics.
Thanks for copying me, fluffball.
Who knows, eventually you may be able to think for yourself?
You consider your comment that he reproduced as an example of “thinking”?? We now know how low the bar is for you in that regard.
Yes des, responding to some of the low-lifes makes me dirty, but I use strong anti-bacterial soap….
Anti-neuronal by the sound of it.
Huffy says,
“Merely tape two felt tip markers to opposite sides of the cup. The markers are taped vertically, so they can mark the surface as the cup moves.”
“In Figure B, the cup is moved around the center of a table so that the handle always faces the same direction, such as north.”
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
********
Now, as usual, JD starts making shit up,
“This is NOT translational motion, as indicated by the crossing circles.”
******
In reality, the circles cross only because their diameters are greater than the distance between the two pens.
Use the same motion, but make the circles smaller than the cup……they won’t cross.
Snape, there are so many things you have wrong, I’m not even going to try to correct you. If I have to have enemies, I want incompetent ememies.
This comment is just another example of the incompetence of clowns. They have no understanding of physics. And, they can’t even understand simple demonstrations like a coffee cup orbiting around something.
It’s no wonder they believe CO2 is heating the planet!
CO2 is not heating the planet JD, just another of the reprobate’s poor physics read on the internet without understanding the author. Great amusement, little physics, more please JD or learn some physics.
Fluffball, when an anonymous coward continually calls me names, it just adds to my credibility.
Keep flinging your scum and slime, it just turns into gold here.
JD is the one that defined JD as a reprobate not me, I am merely in agreement with JD on that point. Learn some physics JD, be better for it, unfortunately JD’s amusement value will only decrease though.
…and yet, there will always be that little voice in the back of your heads, quietly questioning why is the motion in Figure A the only one orbital motion pattern out of all possible configurations, in which you don’t have crossing circles, or inter-weaving patterns of some kind, along the orbital path.
Synchronous rotation explains Example A DREMT, this is well understood except by the reprobate and the team. The entertainment provided by the reprobate and the team is quite understandable though.
Synchronous rotation…yes, you think that only one axial rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit, produces the motion in Figure A, and you believe that any other configuration of orbital motion either with or without axial rotation, in either direction, would produce crossing circles, or inter-weaving patterns of some kind, along the orbital path.
Funny how DREMT can read minds. Just another part of the act.
If you think differently, explain how.
I think how synchronous rotation works is well understood. If DREMT needs to learn more about how SR works, then DREMT should consult the relevant text books in the field.
You didnt explain how you thought differently to what I described, so I will have to assume I was correct.
Ah but Snape, you must consider Huffys interesting race horse law:
“Pure translational motion, such as orbiting, or a racehorse, would not leave a trail of interesting circles.”
Yes Svante…that is what Snape is talking about. “Intersecting” = “crossing”, “interesting” was obviously a typo, ha ha, very good.
Great comment, snape.
Make a 1″ circle with the pen at the top of the cup. You will have two congruent circles that do not cross each other on your paper. Thanks again to JD for proving himself wrong! LMAO.
And since the circles are congruent, the motion is translational per the definition of curvilinear translation.
It really is a great comment. Now all you need is to find an orbiting and axially-rotating object where the orbit diameter is smaller than the diameter of the object.
Example:
If the two pens are 8″ apart, and the circles you draw have a diameter of 1″, not only will the circles not cross, they will end up 7″ away from each other.
From Harvard:
https://tinyurl.com/y725t9y6
Of course, the oil shills will assert that they are more knowledgeable on the subject than Harvard professors.
That’s a funny one too, des.
We don’t see the Moon rotating on its axis because it is rotating in two different directions, at the same time!
You’ve got to admit, that is some creative pseudoscience.
So the article was beyond your level of comprehension?
Nino 3.4 just shot up 0.37C in a day. 3 and 4 also warmed significantly. 1+2 continues to play its own game.
(No Gordon, I am not talking about AGW, as anyone with half a brain can tell, so don’t introduce your typical straw man arguments that are triggered every time you sniff the word ‘warm’.)
Hello, I do think your site could possibly be having
internet browser compatibility problems. When I look at your website in Safari, it looks
fine but when opening in I.E., it’s got some overlapping issues.
I merely wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!
Besides that, fantastic website!
I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme.
Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do
it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like to find
out where u got this from. many thanks
Feels like 1988 to me
I point out the fact that this motion would appear as the moon on the left.
11metTV 11m tv hay cn được gọi với ci tn 11 mt tivi l trang chuyn cung cấp cc đường link xem bng đ trực tuyến tại Việt Nam. Đến với 11m.tv anh em sẽ c được những pht giy tận hưởng những trận cầu đỉnh cao.
Những link tructiepbongda sẽ được cập nhật thường xuyn trước thời gian thi đấu khoảng 30 pht. Thm nữa l cc bạn c thể xem được lịch thi đấu bng đ hng ngy để khng bỏ lỡ bất k trận đấu no.
https://11mtv.webflow.io/
Film izle thanky.
Unlike other spray foam insulation material, Icynene will not give off gas over time, Icynene contains no ozone-depleting substances and will maintain its efficiency with no loss of R-Value for the life of the install.
https://www.foamprosbuffalo.com
Very informative post! This is a very useful post for us. continue this. See Also – Tractor Rear Tyre
It’s the best blog for knowledge. Thank You.
powertrac 445
Whats up, yes this paragraph is really good and I have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging.
thanks.
https://www.gostopsite.com
I want to feel alive and be happy, saying that I will be a good friend with you, and I will be very happy too. I hope there are always good things and happy days. I always cheered for you.
Thank you
https://www.totositeweb.com
I was impressed by the good writing. Thank you.
If you want to know the social graph game, come here!
Great article, totally what I was looking for.
https://www.19guide03.com